Coincidence?

A reader writes:


James,

Jimmy

When I figured out that the Iraqi elections were
scheduled on the anniversary of the eve of the Tet
Offensive, I had a theological question I have never
heard asked. Is it possible that embedded within
history, in the unfolding of God’s plan (Divine
Governance), are sort of historical ironies or puns?
If one looks at puns in the Bible it would seem that
God had to predestine not only the characters and
their circumstances, but the language (Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek) and its development.

It is possible that God has all kinds of buried puns in history, but I wouldn’t suggest that you go looking for them until the next life. That’s when we’ll have the balance and maturity to appreciate such things. In this life the danger of becoming obsessed with them and seeing connections where none exist is too great. (Many people drive themselves nuts this way.)

For example, (while you’re not nuts) I’m not sure that I see a big connection between the Tet offensive and the Iraqi election. They were both things that (a) occurred in other countries and (b) were significant and (c) happened on the same day, but there are only 365.2422 days in the year, and significant things are happening in other countries all the time. There’s bound to be some that have the same anniversary.

Sure, in this case they were both things that happened in connection with insurgency and a controversial U.S. war, but their fundamental nature is different: The insurgency on Tet was not trying to thwart a local election being held at the same time.

On the other hand, here’s a hopeful note: The U.S. defeated the insurgency in Tet; may it do the same in Iraq. (And on a cautionary note: The media was so anti-U.S. policy that it portrayed Tet as a U.S. defeat when it wasn’t; the same may happen with Iraq.)

As far as puns in the Bible, while God may have predestined the development of biblical languages to allow the precise puns he wanted to use, this isn’t a necessity. Every human language is capable of producing puns, and God may have given Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scope to develop and then used their native pun-generating capacity when it came time to write the Scriptures.

Camping On Sundays

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy,

You had a post on your blog about staying home from Mass when sick.
Beside infirmity, are there any other legitimate reasons for staying
home from Mass?  The particular situation I’m wondering about is going
away on a camping trip.

There are other reasons. The care of children is one, for example.

As to camping trips, business trips, and vacations, your obligation is to go to Mass if you reasonably can get to one on Sunday, based on where you are that day. The Church does not understand the obligation to ensuring that you are in a place where you can reasonably get to Mass. Thus if you are in a place where you cannot reasonably get to Mass on a Sunday or holy day, you do not have to go, and you are not legally obligated to cancel or avoid planned trips on this account.

As to what counts as being able to reasonably get to Mass, St. Alphonsus Ligouri spoke of having to ride to Mass for more than fifteen minutes by donkey as being enough. The donkey isn’t the essential part of this though, as people were used to travelling by donkey back then (it was easier for them to do this than it would be for us).

Communion In Austria

A reader writes:

I was recently visiting relatives in a small town outside Vienna, Austria, called Hinterbruel, and on Sunday assisted at Mass at the local parish, along with my family, to fulfill our Sunday obligation.  Though the Mass in German and so I could understand little of what was said, nevertheless the sacramental graces available through Holy Communion would still be efficacious.

But during distribution of Communion I got a shock.  The pastor, with the Altar servers, stood at the head of aisle holding a large bowl of consecrated hosts about waist level.  An altar server next to him held the chalice down low also.  People processed up, plucked a host out of the large bowl and intinctured it in the chalice themselves.  They then consumed the intinctured host.  The priest did nothing but hold the bowl of hosts out for them.

I was shocked.  The thought immediately struck me that this was an unlawful way of distributing communion.  Given what I thought was this illicitness, I did not feel I could participate, and that to do so knowing it was illicit would itself be a grave sin.  I also told my family not to participate, and explained after the Mass what the problem was.

I know this practice is contrary to the norms for the Latin Rite.  Is it properly termed "illicit"?  If it was illicit, would it not be a grave sin to knowingly receive communion under these circumstances?

It does appear that the situation was illicit, unless Austria has particular law that has been approved by the Vatican to allow such a situation. Here is what the universal law, as found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says:

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.

So that would prevent them taking the Host from a bowl or ciborium being held by the priest or other minister.

Regarding Communion by intinction, the GIRM says:

287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

There may be variation to allow others to perform the intinction, but the law does not envision the communicant himself doing so. So it looks like we have a case of illicit distribution of Holy Communion, barring Austria having particular law allowing this.

That being said, would it be a grave sin to receive under these circumstances?

No.

The faithful have a right to receive their Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion that is not trumped by local officials’ insistence on distributing this in an illicit manner. If there are no alternatives, your need and right to receive the Lord Jesus Christ trumps the fact that they insist on an illicit manner of distribution. If the only way to receive Communion is via their illicit method, it is morally licit for you to do so.

That being said, there are several considerations to add:

1) The fact that you were not parishioners but only temporary visitors made it reasonable for you to simply not go to Communion as you would not be deprived of licitly-distributed Communion for a long period, as parishioners might be.

2) If there was a possibility of changing the practice of the parish by refusing to participate then doing so would become more reasonable.

3) There may have been other options that would allow one to receive Communion without making use of the illicit process the parish had established: For example, going up and standing in front of the priest with one’s mouth open (or, if Communion in the hand is allowed in Austria, with one’s hand out) and not moving until Communion is given in a licit manner.

Similarly: Either standing in front of the minister of the chalice with one’s hands out to receive the chalice until one receives it or, if one has received Communion in the hand, approaching the minister of the chalice with hand extended and mouth open until the minister performs the intinction. Or simply not receiving Communion under the form of wine.

The latter (#3) would have been my preferred option, but then I’m an uppity American.

Marriage & Annulment Reader Roundup

READER A writes:

The question is : as today, many thinks that we baptise babies too

easily (whereas parents life is completly out of the Church despite

their baptism), can’t we say we mary people in the Church too easily?

One can certainly argue this. I suspect it varies considrably from country to country as to what the rate of imprudent Chuch weddings is. However, couples have a right to Christian marriage as long as they fulfill the basic requirements, so we can’t simply leave the matter to the discretion of church staffers to impose all kinds of touchie-feelie requirements on the couple. They can be told what the Church teaches, asked to agree to at least this much, and encouraged to think through the prudence of a marriage in their individual case, but ultimately the faithful have a right to marry that cannot be unduly burdened, particularly by the whims of parish officials.

READER B writes:

Been there, done that, was issued the certificate…now I have to

decide whether to frame it as a reminder to remain celibate and single.

One linguistic quibble: "Celibate" and "single" mean the same thing. "Celibate" means "unmarried."  The state of not having conjugal relations is "continent" rather than "celibate" (continence being morally required of all who are celibate = unmarried).

READER C writes:

I wonder if priests get questions like, "My friend and I exchanged

vows when we were in kindergarten. Do I need an annulment?" 🙂

Actually, they do get questions like this. However, people in such a situation don’t need an annulment. Such "ceremonies" aren’t recognized by anybody as constituting a valid marriage. Children of this age do not understand what marriage is and are incapable of committing to it. For a ceremony to require investigation and annulment, it must have some pretense (in someone’s eyes) of having been valid.

READER D writes:

Help me out on a word play. Is it correct to say a marriage was

determined "invalid"? Or does the word "invalid" imply validity

orginally existed but now does not?

"Invalid" means "was never valid/did not come into existence/never existed."

READER E writes:

If a Catholic and a Baptist get married in a Baptist ceremony w/o

dispensation, they lack form and thus the marriage is canonically

invalid; but, had they married in a Catholic ceremony (or w/

dispensation), it would be valid?

Correct.

READER F writes:

But if the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman, and not

the priest (at least in the Roman Rite), isn’t it possible to have

valid (though illict) marriages that occur outside the Catholic Church,

assuming both parties are baptized, and have the intent of a permanent,

exclusive, and fruitful union which they express in vows? I’m just

curious – but I don’t see, given the requirements for the sacrament,

how not being in a specifically Catholic Church would automatically

invalidate it.

The requirement for Catholics to observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., to "get married in the Church") does not arise from the nature of the sacrament itself. The sacrament can and is validly celebrated in non-Catholic services (e.g., by two Baptists getting married in a Baptist church or, for that matter, in front of a justice of the peace or a ship captain). The requirement to observe form is a positive law requirement that used to not be there. Originally, canon law did not require it, but in recent times, as society has changed, the Church has seen fit to introduce it for pastoral reasons. As society continues to change, the Church might see fit to abolish this requirement at some point in the future (and the reinstitute it again later, if needed).

READER F continues:

Are Protestant to Protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the Church?

And, what are the essential elements that constitute the requisite "form"?

Yes to the first question. As to the second, SEE HERE.

READER G writes:

If someone gets married with all the conditions present to make

theirs a valid marriage, but thinks during the ceremony that she will

leave (but not divorce) her husband if he cheats on her, will the

marriage be valid?

(I know there is a requirement that the spouses intend to stay together forever or else it’s not valid)

This marriage will be presumed valid. While there is an obligation to maintain domestic and conjugal life under ordinary circumstances, this obligation is overriden in grave situations, such as when one partner is unfaithful to the other. In such a circumstance, the offended party is within his or her rights to suspend domestic and/or conjugal life, even permanently. It may even be prudent in such situations to obtain a civil divorce (which has no bearing on Church law but may be useful for asset protection, child custody rights, etc.).

What is not entailed in this, however, is the right to remarry someone else. For that to happen, one needs an annulment proving that the first marriage was invalid so one is free to marry.

READER H writes:

Barb and Joe, both baptized Catholics, marry in a Catholic ceremony.

They get a divorce. Barb remarries Fred (both baptized Catholic) before

a jp court, and then divorces. Barb then wants to marry Jebediah, a

Jewish guy, in a civil ceremony.

For Barb’s marriage to Jeb to be recognized by the RCC (thus

allowing her to receive communion), she needs (aside from a little bit

of good spiritual counselling, it would seem):

1) to go to confession (as we all do) TECHNICALLY, NO. WHILE BY ENTERING INTO AN INVALID MARRIAGE WITH FRED, BARB HAS DONE SOMETHING OBJECTIVELY SINFUL, THE STATE OF GRACE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE TO BE VALID. IT IS REQUIRED FOR IT TO BE LICIT (LAWFUL), BUT NOT VALID. LOADS OF FOLKS ENTER VALID MARRIAGES IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN.

2) an annulment from Joe (assuming it could be obtained); CORRECT.

3) an annulment from Fred, as the second marriage would not be

recognized (simply to show it was not recognized, and should be more

readily obtainable than #2); and CORRECT.

4) a dispensation from her bishop(?) to marry Jeb (different cult). CORRECT, BUT HOW MANY JEWISH GUYS ARE NAMED "JEB" THESE DAYS? THAT’S MORE A CHRISTIAN NAME TODAY.

READER I writes:

Note that a Catholic couple, or the Catholic in a mixed marriage, can apply for a dispensation after the wedding — even years after.  I believe this is called convalidation.

Yes, but it’s not quite that simple. If a Catholic failed to observe the Catholic form of marriage then technically what is done is to apply for an annulment and then have the marriage convalidated, typically by a renewal of vows in a simple marriage ceremony in front of a priest (though other arrangements are possible if one of the spouses objects to this). A dispensation from form is only typically needed in the latter case if a non-Catholic is involved. If two Catholics are involved then they simply have their marriage convalidated in front of a priest.

READER J writes:

If there are children involved, just getting an annulment and getting

married may not be fair or just to the children. Her best and most

loving course of action would be to regularize her marriage with the

father of her children. She also may not be capable of a sacramental

marriage and that should be investigated before any steps are taken.

While convalidating the marriage with the children’s father may be the best thing for the children, it also may not be. Some fathers (like some mothers) are more destructive influences than constructive and it may be better to marry someone else or stay single. That being said, the presumption would be for the children’s parents to be married to each other.

The only ways for a person not to be capable of a sacramental marriage (in general) are if the person is (a) unbaptized or (b) incapable of marriage. The former here is precluded by the fact the original correspondent is Catholic and if (b) is the case then she shouldn’t be trying to marry anyone. That, however, complicates the question beyond what the correspondent asked about.

READER J writes:

doesn’t this principle [requiring Catholics to observe form] essentially say that the Church (or any church)

can arbitrarily change what constitutes a valid sacrament based on

discipline? Suppose the Baptists make up a rule that Baptists can’t

marry Methodists, and a Baptist and a Methodist marry and later become

Catholic. They were not following the correct form for their state at

the time. Are they married now or not?

The difference is that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and so has the power to bind and loose. Unlike other Churches (which may regard themselves as having this power), the Catholic Church genuinely does have the authority to, for pastoral reasons, establish impediments to the celebration of the sacraments.

READER J continues:

So the Church can add requirements as to what constitutes a valid

sacrament? I know that disciplinary changes can change licety, but

validity? And if they do, how are they not dogmatic if they have a

supernatural effect? YES.

This sound like a real theological mess just waiting to happen. MAYBE. What

is to stop someone from arguing that the Church can just as easily

retract requirements for validity (like, say, masculinity in the case

of holy orders)? THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT THE CHURCH CAN DO. IT CAN ESTABLISH AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CELEBRATION OF A SACRAMENT (LIKE OBSERVING PROPER FORM), AND IT CAN REGULATE VARIABLE DIVINE REQUIREMENTS (LIKE WHETHER OR NOT YEAST CAN BE MIXED WITH THE WHEAT TO MAKE ALTAR BREAD), BUT IT CANNOT ABROGATE A FUNDAMENTAL DIVINE REQUIREMENT (LIKE MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OR THE EUCHARIST REQUIRING WHEAT BREAD AND GRAPE WINE). THE LAST ARE MATTERS OF DIVINE LAW THAT ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CANNOT CHANGE.

And if the argument is that Catholics marrying in violation of

church disciplines are not married simply because they are being bad,

disobedient Catholics, does this contradict the doctrine that the

worthines of the minister does not affect the validity of the

sacraments? NO, BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD OR DISOBEDIENT. THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPEDIMENT ESTABLISHED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I hope the host addresses this in a little more depth in another

post. I’m afraid that this one is old enough that it will soon be

forgotten, and I really want to understand this.

Hope this helps!

Marriage & Annulment Reader Roundup

READER A writes:

The question is : as today, many thinks that we baptise babies too
easily (whereas parents life is completly out of the Church despite
their baptism), can’t we say we mary people in the Church too easily?

One can certainly argue this. I suspect it varies considrably from country to country as to what the rate of imprudent Chuch weddings is. However, couples have a right to Christian marriage as long as they fulfill the basic requirements, so we can’t simply leave the matter to the discretion of church staffers to impose all kinds of touchie-feelie requirements on the couple. They can be told what the Church teaches, asked to agree to at least this much, and encouraged to think through the prudence of a marriage in their individual case, but ultimately the faithful have a right to marry that cannot be unduly burdened, particularly by the whims of parish officials.

READER B writes:

Been there, done that, was issued the certificate…now I have to
decide whether to frame it as a reminder to remain celibate and single.

One linguistic quibble: "Celibate" and "single" mean the same thing. "Celibate" means "unmarried."  The state of not having conjugal relations is "continent" rather than "celibate" (continence being morally required of all who are celibate = unmarried).

READER C writes:

I wonder if priests get questions like, "My friend and I exchanged
vows when we were in kindergarten. Do I need an annulment?" 🙂

Actually, they do get questions like this. However, people in such a situation don’t need an annulment. Such "ceremonies" aren’t recognized by anybody as constituting a valid marriage. Children of this age do not understand what marriage is and are incapable of committing to it. For a ceremony to require investigation and annulment, it must have some pretense (in someone’s eyes) of having been valid.

READER D writes:

Help me out on a word play. Is it correct to say a marriage was
determined "invalid"? Or does the word "invalid" imply validity
orginally existed but now does not?

"Invalid" means "was never valid/did not come into existence/never existed."

READER E writes:

If a Catholic and a Baptist get married in a Baptist ceremony w/o
dispensation, they lack form and thus the marriage is canonically
invalid; but, had they married in a Catholic ceremony (or w/
dispensation), it would be valid?

Correct.

READER F writes:

But if the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman, and not
the priest (at least in the Roman Rite), isn’t it possible to have
valid (though illict) marriages that occur outside the Catholic Church,
assuming both parties are baptized, and have the intent of a permanent,
exclusive, and fruitful union which they express in vows? I’m just
curious – but I don’t see, given the requirements for the sacrament,
how not being in a specifically Catholic Church would automatically
invalidate it.

The requirement for Catholics to observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., to "get married in the Church") does not arise from the nature of the sacrament itself. The sacrament can and is validly celebrated in non-Catholic services (e.g., by two Baptists getting married in a Baptist church or, for that matter, in front of a justice of the peace or a ship captain). The requirement to observe form is a positive law requirement that used to not be there. Originally, canon law did not require it, but in recent times, as society has changed, the Church has seen fit to introduce it for pastoral reasons. As society continues to change, the Church might see fit to abolish this requirement at some point in the future (and the reinstitute it again later, if needed).

READER F continues:

Are Protestant to Protestant marriages valid in the eyes of the Church?

And, what are the essential elements that constitute the requisite "form"?

Yes to the first question. As to the second, SEE HERE.

READER G writes:

If someone gets married with all the conditions present to make
theirs a valid marriage, but thinks during the ceremony that she will
leave (but not divorce) her husband if he cheats on her, will the
marriage be valid?

(I know there is a requirement that the spouses intend to stay together forever or else it’s not valid)

This marriage will be presumed valid. While there is an obligation to maintain domestic and conjugal life under ordinary circumstances, this obligation is overriden in grave situations, such as when one partner is unfaithful to the other. In such a circumstance, the offended party is within his or her rights to suspend domestic and/or conjugal life, even permanently. It may even be prudent in such situations to obtain a civil divorce (which has no bearing on Church law but may be useful for asset protection, child custody rights, etc.).

What is not entailed in this, however, is the right to remarry someone else. For that to happen, one needs an annulment proving that the first marriage was invalid so one is free to marry.

READER H writes:

Barb and Joe, both baptized Catholics, marry in a Catholic ceremony.
They get a divorce. Barb remarries Fred (both baptized Catholic) before
a jp court, and then divorces. Barb then wants to marry Jebediah, a
Jewish guy, in a civil ceremony.

For Barb’s marriage to Jeb to be recognized by the RCC (thus
allowing her to receive communion), she needs (aside from a little bit
of good spiritual counselling, it would seem):

1) to go to confession (as we all do) TECHNICALLY, NO. WHILE BY ENTERING INTO AN INVALID MARRIAGE WITH FRED, BARB HAS DONE SOMETHING OBJECTIVELY SINFUL, THE STATE OF GRACE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE TO BE VALID. IT IS REQUIRED FOR IT TO BE LICIT (LAWFUL), BUT NOT VALID. LOADS OF FOLKS ENTER VALID MARRIAGES IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN.

2) an annulment from Joe (assuming it could be obtained); CORRECT.

3) an annulment from Fred, as the second marriage would not be
recognized (simply to show it was not recognized, and should be more
readily obtainable than #2); and CORRECT.

4) a dispensation from her bishop(?) to marry Jeb (different cult). CORRECT, BUT HOW MANY JEWISH GUYS ARE NAMED "JEB" THESE DAYS? THAT’S MORE A CHRISTIAN NAME TODAY.

READER I writes:

Note that a Catholic couple, or the Catholic in a mixed marriage, can apply for a dispensation after the wedding — even years after.  I believe this is called convalidation.

Yes, but it’s not quite that simple. If a Catholic failed to observe the Catholic form of marriage then technically what is done is to apply for an annulment and then have the marriage convalidated, typically by a renewal of vows in a simple marriage ceremony in front of a priest (though other arrangements are possible if one of the spouses objects to this). A dispensation from form is only typically needed in the latter case if a non-Catholic is involved. If two Catholics are involved then they simply have their marriage convalidated in front of a priest.

READER J writes:

If there are children involved, just getting an annulment and getting
married may not be fair or just to the children. Her best and most
loving course of action would be to regularize her marriage with the
father of her children. She also may not be capable of a sacramental
marriage and that should be investigated before any steps are taken.

While convalidating the marriage with the children’s father may be the best thing for the children, it also may not be. Some fathers (like some mothers) are more destructive influences than constructive and it may be better to marry someone else or stay single. That being said, the presumption would be for the children’s parents to be married to each other.

The only ways for a person not to be capable of a sacramental marriage (in general) are if the person is (a) unbaptized or (b) incapable of marriage. The former here is precluded by the fact the original correspondent is Catholic and if (b) is the case then she shouldn’t be trying to marry anyone. That, however, complicates the question beyond what the correspondent asked about.

READER J writes:

doesn’t this principle [requiring Catholics to observe form] essentially say that the Church (or any church)
can arbitrarily change what constitutes a valid sacrament based on
discipline? Suppose the Baptists make up a rule that Baptists can’t
marry Methodists, and a Baptist and a Methodist marry and later become
Catholic. They were not following the correct form for their state at
the time. Are they married now or not?

The difference is that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and so has the power to bind and loose. Unlike other Churches (which may regard themselves as having this power), the Catholic Church genuinely does have the authority to, for pastoral reasons, establish impediments to the celebration of the sacraments.

READER J continues:

So the Church can add requirements as to what constitutes a valid
sacrament? I know that disciplinary changes can change licety, but
validity? And if they do, how are they not dogmatic if they have a
supernatural effect? YES.

This sound like a real theological mess just waiting to happen. MAYBE. What
is to stop someone from arguing that the Church can just as easily
retract requirements for validity (like, say, masculinity in the case
of holy orders)? THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT THE CHURCH CAN DO. IT CAN ESTABLISH AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CELEBRATION OF A SACRAMENT (LIKE OBSERVING PROPER FORM), AND IT CAN REGULATE VARIABLE DIVINE REQUIREMENTS (LIKE WHETHER OR NOT YEAST CAN BE MIXED WITH THE WHEAT TO MAKE ALTAR BREAD), BUT IT CANNOT ABROGATE A FUNDAMENTAL DIVINE REQUIREMENT (LIKE MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OR THE EUCHARIST REQUIRING WHEAT BREAD AND GRAPE WINE). THE LAST ARE MATTERS OF DIVINE LAW THAT ECCLESIASTICAL LAW CANNOT CHANGE.

And if the argument is that Catholics marrying in violation of
church disciplines are not married simply because they are being bad,
disobedient Catholics, does this contradict the doctrine that the
worthines of the minister does not affect the validity of the
sacraments? NO, BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD OR DISOBEDIENT. THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE THERE IS AN IMPEDIMENT ESTABLISHED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

I hope the host addresses this in a little more depth in another
post. I’m afraid that this one is old enough that it will soon be
forgotten, and I really want to understand this.

Hope this helps!

German OUTRAGE!

As an illustration of why the pope needs to issue a pan-European encyclical titled (in Latin) "Repent Or Go To Hell":

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services” at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Under Germany’s welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.

So here we have a case of (presumably) unintended consequences: Instead of combatting trafficking in women and cutting links to organized crime, the government has increased the trafficking of women and created a new form of government-organized crime!

GET THE HORRIBLE STORY.

January 1, 2004 Show

A special holler out to Chris St. Jean for doing the January 2004 shows! (Part of the Volunteer Program.)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Despite his assertion to the contrary in
    Matthew 24:36, does Jesus in fact know the "day and hour" of the end of the world?
  • How should we interpret Jesus’ prophecy in Mark 13:30 that "this generation shall not pass, until all these things be done"?
  • If heaven is a place, then why isn’t it visible?
  • What objective histories of the Inquisition would you recommend for Protestant readers?
  • Is a marriage in a Catholic church between a Catholic and an unbaptized person valid and/or sacramental?
  • What did the Council of Trent mean when it declared that Catholics must accept all the books of the Latin Vulgate "with all their
    parts"?
  • Which churches in Christendom accept the existence of purgatory?
  • In reciting the Our Father, should we forgive those who "trespass against us" or who "have trespassed against us"?
  • Are spouses directly responsible for each other’s salvation?
  • Is the sacrament of penance valid in the Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, why might Eastern Orthodox priests validly celebrate thesacrament yet members of the Society of St. Pius X cannot, being thatboth groups are in schism?
  • Can we identify as Antichrist those who do not believe in Jesus as Savior?

SCIENTIST: Seek New Heavens & New Earth!

Michio Kaku is a Japanese American physicist. Educated at Harvard and Berkeley. Taught at Princeton. Teaches at City Univeristy of New York.

HERE’S AN INTERESTING (IF LONG) ARTICLE BY HIM.

In the article, he says a number of interesting things (excerpts):

The universe is out of control, in a runaway acceleration. Eventually

all intelligent life will face the final doom—the big freeze.

In 1998, astronomers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and

the Australian National University calculated the expansion rate by

studying dozens of powerful supernova explosions within distant

galaxies, which can light up the entire universe. They could not

believe their own data. Some unknown force was pushing the galaxies

apart, causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Brian

Schmidt, one of the group leaders, said, "I was still shaking my head,

but we had checked everything… I was very reluctant to tell people,

because I truly thought that we were going to get massacred."

Physicists

went scrambling back to their blackboards and realised that some "dark

energy" of unknown origin, akin to Einstein’s "cosmological constant,"

was acting as an anti-gravity force. Apparently, empty space itself

contains enough repulsive dark energy to blow the universe apart. The

more the universe expands, the more dark energy there is to make it

expand even faster, leading to an exponential runaway mode.

In

2003, this astonishing result was confirmed by the WMAP (Wilkinson

microwave anisotropy probe) satellite. Orbiting at a million miles from

earth, this satellite contains two telescopes capable of detecting the

faint microwave radiation which bathes the universe. It is so sensitive

that it is able to photograph in exquisite detail the afterglow of the

microwave radiation left over from the big bang, which is still

circulating the universe. The WMAP satellite, in effect, gave us "baby

pictures" of the universe when it was a mere 380,000 years old.

The

WMAP satellite settled the long-standing question of the age of the

universe: it is officially 13.7bn years old (to within 1 per cent

accuracy). But more remarkably, the data showed that dark energy is not

a fluke, but makes up 73 per cent of the matter and energy of the

entire universe. To deepen the mystery, the data showed that 23 per

cent of the universe consists of "dark matter," a bizarre form of

matter which is invisible but still has weight. Hydrogen and helium

make up 4 per cent, while the higher elements, you and I included, make

up just 0.03 per cent. Dark energy and most of dark matter do not

consist of atoms, which means that, contrary to what the ancient Greeks

believed and what is taught in every chemistry course, most of the

universe is not made of atoms at all.

At the University of Colorado in Denver, the first experiment was

conducted to search for the presence of a parallel universe, perhaps

only a millimetre away.

Other avenues are also being explored. In 2007, the large hadron

collider (LHC), capable of blasting subatomic particles with a colossal

energy of 14 trillion electron volts (10 trillion times the energy

found in a typical chemical reaction) will be turned on outside Geneva.

The world’s largest atom smasher, this huge machine, 27km in

circumference, straddling the French-Swiss border, will probe into

places 10,000 times smaller than a proton. Physicists expect to find an

entire zoo of new subatomic particles not seen since the big bang.

Physicists

predict that the LHC may create exotic particles like mini-black holes

and supersymmetric particles, dubbed "sparticles," which would provide

indirect evidence for string theory. In string theory, every particle

has a super-partner. The partner of the electron is the "selectron,"

the partner of the quark is the "squark," and so on.

Furthermore,

around 2012, the space-based gravity wave detector Lisa (laser

interferometer space antenna) will be sent into orbit. Lisa will be

able to detect the gravitational shockwaves emitted less than a

trillionth of a second after the big bang. It will consist of three

satellites circling the sun, connected by laser beams, making a huge

triangle in space 5m km on each side. Any gravitational wave which

strikes Lisa will disturb the lasers, and this tiny distortion will be

picked up by instruments, signalling the collision of two black holes

or the big bang aftershock itself. Lisa is so sensitive—it can measure

distortions a tenth the diameter of an atom—that it may be able to test

many of the scenarios being proposed for the pre-big bang universe,

including string theory.

Why is Kaku mentioning all these things?

Because our universe is doomed.

The main subject of his article is how–in a way consistent with the currently known laws of physics and biology–a civilization might be able to escape this universe before the Big Freeze and go to a new universe, finding a new heaven and a new earth.

Of course, Christians are already planning on this.

God just won’t be using technological means to do it.

(THEOLOGICAL NOTE: Technically, the prophecy of the eschatological new heaven and a new earth might not refer to a literally new universe but to a massive renovation of the present universe such that it is able to exist indefinitely.)

Still, Kaku’s article has a lot of neat sci-fi ideas that no earthlings besides sci-fi authors will be able to fully follow up on.

GET THE STORIES.

SCIENTIST: Seek New Heavens & New Earth!

Michio Kaku is a Japanese American physicist. Educated at Harvard and Berkeley. Taught at Princeton. Teaches at City Univeristy of New York.

HERE’S AN INTERESTING (IF LONG) ARTICLE BY HIM.

In the article, he says a number of interesting things (excerpts):

The universe is out of control, in a runaway acceleration. Eventually
all intelligent life will face the final doom—the big freeze.

In 1998, astronomers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and
the Australian National University calculated the expansion rate by
studying dozens of powerful supernova explosions within distant
galaxies, which can light up the entire universe. They could not
believe their own data. Some unknown force was pushing the galaxies
apart, causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Brian
Schmidt, one of the group leaders, said, "I was still shaking my head,
but we had checked everything… I was very reluctant to tell people,
because I truly thought that we were going to get massacred."

Physicists
went scrambling back to their blackboards and realised that some "dark
energy" of unknown origin, akin to Einstein’s "cosmological constant,"
was acting as an anti-gravity force. Apparently, empty space itself
contains enough repulsive dark energy to blow the universe apart. The
more the universe expands, the more dark energy there is to make it
expand even faster, leading to an exponential runaway mode.

In
2003, this astonishing result was confirmed by the WMAP (Wilkinson
microwave anisotropy probe) satellite. Orbiting at a million miles from
earth, this satellite contains two telescopes capable of detecting the
faint microwave radiation which bathes the universe. It is so sensitive
that it is able to photograph in exquisite detail the afterglow of the
microwave radiation left over from the big bang, which is still
circulating the universe. The WMAP satellite, in effect, gave us "baby
pictures" of the universe when it was a mere 380,000 years old.

The
WMAP satellite settled the long-standing question of the age of the
universe: it is officially 13.7bn years old (to within 1 per cent
accuracy). But more remarkably, the data showed that dark energy is not
a fluke, but makes up 73 per cent of the matter and energy of the
entire universe. To deepen the mystery, the data showed that 23 per
cent of the universe consists of "dark matter," a bizarre form of
matter which is invisible but still has weight. Hydrogen and helium
make up 4 per cent, while the higher elements, you and I included, make
up just 0.03 per cent. Dark energy and most of dark matter do not
consist of atoms, which means that, contrary to what the ancient Greeks
believed and what is taught in every chemistry course, most of the
universe is not made of atoms at all.

At the University of Colorado in Denver, the first experiment was
conducted to search for the presence of a parallel universe, perhaps
only a millimetre away.

Other avenues are also being explored. In 2007, the large hadron
collider (LHC), capable of blasting subatomic particles with a colossal
energy of 14 trillion electron volts (10 trillion times the energy
found in a typical chemical reaction) will be turned on outside Geneva.
The world’s largest atom smasher, this huge machine, 27km in
circumference, straddling the French-Swiss border, will probe into
places 10,000 times smaller than a proton. Physicists expect to find an
entire zoo of new subatomic particles not seen since the big bang.

Physicists
predict that the LHC may create exotic particles like mini-black holes
and supersymmetric particles, dubbed "sparticles," which would provide
indirect evidence for string theory. In string theory, every particle
has a super-partner. The partner of the electron is the "selectron,"
the partner of the quark is the "squark," and so on.

Furthermore,
around 2012, the space-based gravity wave detector Lisa (laser
interferometer space antenna) will be sent into orbit. Lisa will be
able to detect the gravitational shockwaves emitted less than a
trillionth of a second after the big bang. It will consist of three
satellites circling the sun, connected by laser beams, making a huge
triangle in space 5m km on each side. Any gravitational wave which
strikes Lisa will disturb the lasers, and this tiny distortion will be
picked up by instruments, signalling the collision of two black holes
or the big bang aftershock itself. Lisa is so sensitive—it can measure
distortions a tenth the diameter of an atom—that it may be able to test
many of the scenarios being proposed for the pre-big bang universe,
including string theory.

Why is Kaku mentioning all these things?

Because our universe is doomed.

The main subject of his article is how–in a way consistent with the currently known laws of physics and biology–a civilization might be able to escape this universe before the Big Freeze and go to a new universe, finding a new heaven and a new earth.

Of course, Christians are already planning on this.

God just won’t be using technological means to do it.

(THEOLOGICAL NOTE: Technically, the prophecy of the eschatological new heaven and a new earth might not refer to a literally new universe but to a massive renovation of the present universe such that it is able to exist indefinitely.)

Still, Kaku’s article has a lot of neat sci-fi ideas that no earthlings besides sci-fi authors will be able to fully follow up on.

GET THE STORIES.