Month: August 2006

Woo-Hoo! Two New Planets!

The International Astronomical Union, meeting last week, adopted an official definition of what constitutes a planet, with the result that we have two new planets: Ceres and "Xena"! Yippie!

Now, before you say to yourself, "What planet has he been on?", yes, yes, I know: Under the IAU definition these bodies–together with Pluto–are classified as "dwarf planets," rather than planets sans phrase, but dwarf planets are still planets, just as dwarf humans are still humans.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. 😛

Now, let’s talk about the definition they finally coughed up:

The IAU . . . resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

Footnotes:

[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
[2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories.
[3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects [SOURCE].

The condition that keeps Pluto, Ceres, and "Xena" from being planets sans phrase is condition 1c, which is that the body "has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."

That’s totally stupid.

Not only is it unacceptably vague (just how clear does the orbit have to be?), it also has nothing to do with the nature of an object. It has to do with the object’s relationship to other objects, and as I’ve already said, what an object is is more important than where it is if you want to talk about its nature. By including a relational term in the definition, the IAU seeks to establish "planet" as a partly natural, partly relational category, and that’s just scientifically inelegant.

(Incidentally, criterion 1a–about going around the sun–is another dumb relational term.)

What we should be trying to do here, in coming up with a definition for a planet, is try to capture the natural essence of those bodies which have come to be regarded as planets, and the only essential criteria that I can see for them is that they (a) don’t glow (no fusion) and (b) are big enough that their gravity causes them to be round.

Saying that they’ve cleared their orbit is superfluous. That means that you could have an object the size of Jupiter in an orbit filled with asteroids and deny it the status of a planet sans phrase on that basis. It would make the Jupiter-sized object a "dwarf planet" even though it drawfs the Earth!

Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!

In fact, some folks have argued that this situation is precisely the one that we’re in:

There continues to be much criticism regarding the final draft of the definition. For instance, the lead scientist on NASA’s robotic mission to Pluto, Dr Alan Stern, contends that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones either. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path. "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn’t be there," he added [SOURCE].

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, IAU! Jupiter as a "dwarf planet"!

Fortunately, I think this definition is likely to get revisted in the future. Not only is it scientifically gerrymandered, but

The orchestration of the final vote has come under criticism because of lack of participation due mainly to the time of the vote. The final vote was taken on the last day of the 10-day event after many had left or were preparing to leave. Over 2,700 astronomers attended the conference, but only 424 remained on the last day. There is also the issue of many astronomers who are unable to make the trip to Prague [SOURCE].

Once the broader membership of the IAU has had a chance to weigh in, a considerable fight may start and the issue may get revisited at a future convention.

Further, the inelegant nature of the definition may force itself upon the minds of current or future astronomers with sufficient force to force a reconsideration. Or further scientific discoveries may.

Let’s hope that next time they get it right: Figure out the essence of the object you’re talking about and go with that, regardless of what the conclusions are.

In the meantime, I’m happy to be living in a solar system with eleven planets: eight planets sans phrase and three dwarf planets.

Ask An Ayatollah

Gasistani

Catholic Answers’ question-and-answer shows on "Catholic Answers Live" are very popular and so it can sometimes be difficult for listeners to get through to ask their question of an apologist on-air. If Catholic Answers’ apologists find that more questions are asked than they have time and resources to answer on-air, one can only imagine how difficult it must be for the Grand Ayatollah Sistani to empty his question queue.

Really. Sayyid Ali Husaini al-Sistani, a Grand Ayatollah of the Shiite Muslims and a political activist in Iraq, has his own website on which he answers questions posed to him on topics ranging from abortion to zakat (obligatory charity).

ASK AN AYATOLLAH.

(Nod to Katie Allison Granju for the link.)

Ordinarily, I would copy-‘n-paste a selection from the site to give you a sample of the ayatollah’s apologetics, but his site specifically warns that such reproduction is strictly forbidden. So, you’ll have to log on to the site yourself to take a peek.

Don’t Worry; Be Holy

A reader writes:

It is my understanding that certain actions lead to immediate excommunication from the Church whether the individual is directly notified from the Vatican or his or her bishop on the matter.

True. There are a handful of offenses that have latae sententiae (automatic) excommunications attached to them. A person does not have to receive a canonical warning for these excommunications to take place, though they do have to know about the penalty that is attached to the offense (among other conditions).

Certain actions like ordaining bishops without papal approval are obviously understood to take you out of Communion with Rome;

Um, there’s a subtlety here. Ordaining bishops without papal approval does not take one out of communion with the Church, it only results in excommunication. Under current law, being excommunicated does not place you outside of communion, though it does reflect an impaired state of communion.

By contrast, ordaining bishops contrary to papal mandate (i.e., doing it when the pope has told you not to) does constitute schism, and schism does take you out of communion. (It also results in excommunication, but htat’s a separate matter.

however disagreements over theology may take some discernment by the CDF to determine excommunication.

In the case of heresy, yes, theological disputes may have to be adjudicated by the CDF to determine whether someone has committed heresy and thus triggered excommunication for that. However, the CDF is not the only organ in Rome (or locally) empowered to declare than an excommunication has taken place.

So is it true that certain actions bring about excommunication without notification from an ecclesial authority?

Yes, as noted above.

If that is the case, let’s take a look at the issue of the women “priests” who were ordained at Pittsburgh in a van down by the river a boat [strikethrough and replacement in the original e-mail–ja]. The women “bishops” who performed the ordination claim they were consecrated as bishops in a secret ceremony by Roman Catholic bishops. (I think they are lying, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume they are telling the truth.)

Okay, let’s, though I am not at all confident that they are lying. They might be, but they very well might not be.

Wouldn’t that immediately excommunicate those unnamed bishops?

No. Here’s why: Women cannot be validly ordained, therefore no ordination took place. Therefore, there was no consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate, and that excommunication was not triggered.

Canonically, what happened was the simulation of a sacrament, and that’s a different offense, with a different canonical effect. According to Canon 1379, "a person who simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty." In order for them to be punished with a just penalty, a competent authority has to impose that penalty. It could be excommunication or it could be something else, depending on what the authority decides. In any event, it ain’t automatic.

If that is the case [i.e., if one of these bishops were automatically excommunicated], wouldn’t that excommunication invalidate and sacraments or ordinations that the bishop presided over after his excommunication?

No. A bishop could still perform the sacraments–including ordinations–validly even in a state of excommunication.  The power to dispense the sacraments resides fully in office of bishop, and the Code does not create any impediments to an excommunicated bishop being able to do so validly.

What effect would that have on the sacraments administered by a priest who was ordained by an excommunicated bishop?

He would do so illicitly (and gravely sinfully), but they would be valid.

Therefore, one need not worry that there are some unknown, automatically excommunicated bishops out there invalidly dispensing sacraments and ordaining priests on account of their ordination of the women "bishops." The law does not provide automatic excommunication for their offense, and even if it did, it would not render their sacraments invalid.

So one doesn’t need to worry; one can still go to their sacraments to be made holy (i.e., receive sanctifying grace).

Now, what about a bishop (or priest) who DID, unbeknownst to anybody, incur automatic excommunication? What would THAT do?

Here’s what the Code says:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

All of that happens if a bishop or priest incurs an automatic excommunication: He’s not allowed to ("is forbidden") to have ministerial participation in liturgical function, he’s not allowed to celebrate or receive the sacraments, and he’s not allowed to exercise ecclesiastical offices or functions.

All of that follows directly upon the excommunication. It doesn’t matter whether anybody knows that he’s excommunicated himself or not.

But note that it just says he’s forbidden to do these things (i.e., that they are illicit for him to perform). It doesn’t mean that he can’t (i.e., that his attempts to do them will be invalid).

How do we know that?

Well, it turns out that if it comes to light that he’s excommunicated himself and a competent authority declares this fact then additional canonical effects kick in:

§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;

2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;

3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;

4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;

5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.

Section 2, number two makes it clear that the prohibitions mentioned in section 1 pertain to liceity rather than validity. It also provides that if an excommunication is declared on a bishop that he not only shouldn’t place acts of government but that he can’t. Any acts of government he attempts to place after the excommunication is declared are invalid and not legally binding on those to whom they are directed.

As long as his excommunication is not declared (as is necessarily the case for a bishop who excommunicated himself without anybody knowing it) he can still validly place acts of governance as a bishop, and you’ll note that section 2 does not prevent him from celebrating the sacraments validtly, even if the excommunication is declared.

So we as laity don’t have to worry that our reception of the sacraments is being invalidated due to bishops crypto-excommunicating themselves. We can just follow the maxim, "Don’t worry; be holy."

Now, should the identities of the bishops who allengedly did this come to light, and should it turn out that they actually did it, then Rome would have the very unpleasant task of imposing a just penalty on them. To my mind, the just penalty for simulating the consecration of a female bishop should be excommunication at a minimum, and likely more than that.

Fortunately, B16’s up to the task.

Final Holdouts Now Surrendering To Pod People

A piece back I decided I wanted to listen to some songs by the Beatles, so I went to the iTunes music store and typed in their name. Know how many songs were available for download?

Absolutely none.

The Beatles, y’see, (technically, Apple Corps, which is responsible for looking after their copyrights) has not allowed their music to be made available for download.

So I just got the songs I wanted on CD and ripped them.

This is not the first time the Beatles have been behind the technological curve. They were also one of the last bands to make their work available on CD.

C’mon, guys! Don’t stay stuck in the ’60s!

The Beatles, however, are not the only big-name act that hasn’t wanted to allow its fans to be able to (legally) download its music. Others include Bob Seger, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Garth Brooks, and Kid Rock.

But the times, they are a-changin’!

The number of pod people out there has now become so vast that these last few holdouts are starting to recognize that their struggle is futile, and they are beginning to surrender.

Bob Seger and Metallica have now joined the revolution, and the writing is on the wall for the rest of them:

But bands can no longer risk losing out on sales and marketing generated from the digital formats, especially on iTunes, said Phil Leigh, an analyst with Inside Digital Media, a market research firm. With CD sales continuing to drop, it’s only a matter of time until the last holdouts give up, he said.

GET THE STORY.

So, special message for the Beatles . . .  YOU’RE NEXT!

We Are Taking Back Our FutureChurch!

Over at Catholic Exchange (via Crisis Magazine), Brian Saint-Paul tells us of a new Catholic dissident organization (yippee, another one) that hopes not only to reform the Catholic Church in the United States, but to actually overthrow it.

Take Back Our Church (founded by ex-Jesuit Robert Blair Kaiser) plans on fomenting a kind of spiritual insurrection that will result in a home-grown American Catholic Church that does not answer to the Pope (or anyone else, I assume). Why, or how, they would refer to this as a Catholic Church is somewhat mysterious, but let us press on…

Kaiser is the author of a book titled A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future, the thrust of which Saint-Paul sums up for us;

"The Fathers of Vatican II ushered in a golden age of openness, tolerance, and progressive action. Unfortunately, the dark forces of John Paul II and his diabolical collaborator, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, clamped down on this movement of the Spirit, dragging the Church back to the Dark Ages…"

I know some Rad Trads who may be surprised to hear that…

"In light of this, thinking Catholics need to reclaim their Church — and maybe even start an American Catholic Church of their own."

So, look out, Catholics! Kaiser aspires to be the spiritual Guy Fawkes of the New Catholicism, blowing to smithereens the stuffy parliament of the old Catholic hierarchy in America.

This is the exact opposite of a grass-roots movement (though grass may well be involved). A true grass-roots movement takes shape because large numbers of people share the same idea, want the same things and can make common cause with one another to create change. Kaiser is a contributing editor of Newsweek, and the membership of his organization stands at 580. This is an elitist movement, germinated in the hot-house of American media culture.

Kaiser proposes;

"We will write a Declaration of Autochthony (let’s see you pronounce that), one that will challenge our priest-people and our people-people to work out a constitution for the American Church that carefully puts aside the Rome-based secretive, half-vast, culturally-conditioned legalisms codified in canon law in return for the kind of servant Church envisioned at Vatican II."

Never mind that Kaiser would probably run screaming from the room if you showed him any of the actual documents from Vatican II… (I’m melting! I’m melting! Oh, what a world!…)

I find it hilarious that this guy hopes to craft a Constitution after coining such terms as "people-people".

I am also finding it harder to keep track of all these dissident groups. It’s confusing. I mean, if We Are Church, why would we need to Take Back Our Church? Why does FutureChurch pine for the good old days of Vatican II?

In a way, I am always a little excited to hear about someone planning to start some sort of independent American Catholic Church because it makes me hopeful that, were such a monstrosity actually to come about, all the kooks would flock to it and leave us regular Catholic folk in relative peace. But then I remember that such a split would no doubt grieve the Holy Spirit, and possibly cause the loss of a great number of souls, and I come back to my senses.

No, better for all concerned if the dissidents never achieve their goals.

Kaiser is on a roll, though, and hopes to expand his organization’s meager membership by having all current members e-mail their friends and encourage them to join. You know, like Amway.

Ooh! I shiver as a Shadow grows in Mordor…

GET THE STORY.

Suited Up

The outrage potential of some radical Traditionalists can, at times, be bewildering. Rather than look at a picture that surprises them and try to think of the most charitable explanation for that picture, apparently, their reactions are set on default to "See! More evidence that Neo-Church is out to get us all!"

Take this picture of two elderly brothers spending some downtime together, a snapshot that I find simply adorable, and test your default reaction to it:

B16suit

Evidently the photograph was published in the European magazine Point de Vue on February 15, 2006 (at least according to the attribution given the picture by the radical Traditionalist site Tradition In Action). In any event, the picture is likely to be a post-election photo of Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps taken when he visited Germany last year.

(UPDATE: Comboxers have dated the photo to a 2004 retreat the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and his brother took together.  See the combox for more information.)   

The RadTrad site’s reaction:

"Either during his trip to Germany last year or in Italy — the magazine Point de Vue did not specify a place for this recent photo — Benedict XVI meets his brother Fr. [sic; it’s Msgr.] Georg Ratzinger at a piano to dicuss some scores of Mozart.

"Both the Pope and the priest are wearing suits. One can see that Fr. [Msgr.] Georg chooses a more relaxed open shirt, while his ‘conservative’ papal brother Joseph keeps his closed. Although the photo is not very clear on this detail, it seems that Benedict is wearing a tie.

"At any rate, Pope Ratzinger [sic] wears a well tailored double-breasted blue-grey suit.

[…]

"At least Joseph Ratzinger maintains the ‘tradition’ of wearing suits. It should confirm some conservatives in the fact that Benedict maintains old customs…."

GET THE STORY.

Horrors! Shouldn’t a pope know better than to wear anything but a white cassock during his personal time? After all, hasn’t every pope since St. Peter done so?

Oh, wait. White papal clothing was introduced by Pope St. Pius V, who decided not to wear "traditional" papal finery during his downtime but to continue to ordinarily wear his white Dominican habit. Future popes continued wearing a white cassock until it became "traditional." And, speaking of St. Peter…. Didn’t he once strip down to his skivvies while fishing on the Sea of Tiberias and have to dress quickly and swim to shore so he could meet the Lord (John 21:7)?

But don’t tell TIA any of this. Their default setting might overload.

(POST-PUBLICATION NOTE:  It is likely that the photo is pre-election, rather than post-election, but the general point remains the same:  There is nothing wrong with a pope, cardinal, or priest not wearing Traditional Clerical Garb during his personal time. Granted, doing so can be prudentially advantageous, especially if a priest is "on call." But doing so purely for the sake of Image can actually be prideful [Matt. 23:2-7].)

The Roe Effect In Action

We’ve commented before on the fact that Roe is doomed for the simple reason that those who favor abortion have a higher rate of using it and therefore produce fewer children, meaning that those who don’t favor abotion will eventually outpopulate them and have the strength to get rid of abortion in America (which will be a long and messy process).

HERE’S AN ARTICLE THAT–WITHOUT AN ABORTION-SPECIFIC APPLICATION–MAKES A PARALLEL POINT.

EXCERPTS:

According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%–explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today’s problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020–and all for no other reason than babies.

That, of course, is not only assuming that current trends hold but also that nothing else is affecting the situation.

But there is something that can affect it: Immigration.

If you aren’t making enough new voters on your own, importing them is always a possibility, and since liberals tend to do better with newly immigrated voters (for at least a few generations), there is a strong incentive on the part of political liberals to want to encourage as much immigration as possible–legally and otherwise. This also explains the efforts on the part of some political liberals to create situations in which even illegal aliens can vote in American elections.

While large-scale immigration can slow the ending of abortion, it can’t stop it, however. The United States cannot absorb an unlimited number of new immigrants, and at some point the current massive influx we are seeing will stop. When that happens, the ordinary consequences of the Roe Effect will act in an unimpeded manner and lead to those who disfavor abortion outpopulating those who favor it.

Abortion’s still doomed. It’s just a question of how many babies have to get killed before it ends.

A Meme Of Noble Descent

Familytree

Have you ever been jealous when some friend or acquaintance bragged to you about all the famous and/or noble people he had found hanging from his family tree (so to speak)? No need. Odds are, you too have a notable ancestor hiding among the foliage of your family tree! After all, if it could be true for Brooke Shields, it could be true for anyone.

"Actress Brooke Shields has a pretty impressive pedigree — hanging from her family tree are Catherine de Medici and Lucrezia Borgia, Charlemagne and El Cid, William the Conqueror and King Harold II, vanquished by William at the Battle of Hastings.

"Shields also descends from five popes, a whole mess of early New England settlers, and the royal houses of virtually every European country. She counts Renaissance pundit Niccolo Machiavelli and conquistador Hernando Cortes as ancestors.

What is it about Brooke Shields? Well, nothing special — at least genealogically.

"Even without a documented connection to a notable forebear, experts say, the odds are virtually 100 percent that every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or another."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to E-Skojec.com for the link.)

How cool! This, I think, calls for My First Meme:

1. Which famous person would you most like to learn that you are descended from? Pope John Paul II (collaterally, of course). Hey, if Brooke Shields can be descended from five popes, then I can have one of the greatest among them as an indirect ancestor.

2. Which famous person would you hate to learn that you are descended from? Brigham Young. Although with some fifty wives and over fifty known children (source), he’s likely to have a multitude of direct and collateral descendants here in the U.S.

3. If you could be ancestor to any living famous person, who would it be and why? Dan Brown. It would give me the chance to make sure there was some decent Christian catechesis in the family that might have molded him into not writing The Da Vinci Code (or, failing that, at least not writing it as it ended up being written).

4. If you could go back in time and meet any known ancestor(s) of yours, who would it be? Direct and collateral ancestors who fought on both sides of the American Civil War. The old adage that that war tore apart families is quite literally true.

5. Tag five others: My sister, Jimmy, Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B., the Curt Jester, Ten Reasons, and anyone else who wants to play on their own blogs or in the combox.

Well, This Isn’t A Total Surprise

FROM SCI-FI WIRE:

SG-1 Ends Run; Atlantis Back

SCI FI Channel confirmed that it will not renew its record-breaking original series Stargate SG-1 for another season, but will pick up its spinoff series Stargate Atlantis for a fourth year. SG-1 aired its 200th episode on Aug. 18, and the SF series is the longest-running SF show on American television.

SCI FI issued the following statement on Aug. 21: "SCI FI Channel is proud to be the network that brought Stargate SG-1 to its record-breaking 10th season. Ten seasons and 215 episodes is an astounding, Guinness World Record-setting accomplishment. Stargate is a worldwide phenomenon. Having achieved so much over the course of the past 10 years, SCI FI believes that the time is right to make this season their last on the channel. SCI FI is honored to have been part of the Stargate legacy for five years, and we look forward to continuing to explore the Stargate universe with our partners at MGM through a new season of Stargate Atlantis."

Stargate SG-1, developed for television by executive producers Brad Wright and Jonathan Glassner, is based on the 1994 feature film Stargate. SG-1, which originally starred Richard Dean Anderson, Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge, began on Showtime, then moved to SCI FI after five seasons. The current cast includes Tapping, Shanks and Judge and newcomers Ben Browder, Claudia Black and Beau Bridges. It airs Fridays at 9 p.m. ET/PT [SOURCE].

CHT to the reader who e-mailed.

I’m sorry to see SG1 go, but it’s quality hasn’t been as high the last few years. I’m impressed with how well they did after Richard Dean Anderson MacGuyvered his way out of the program. The introduction this season of Vala (sp?) as a regular character was a breath of fresh air, but SG1 hasn’t been able to motivate me to tune in each week for some time (couldn’t compete with square dancing), so I’ve been catching reruns and plan on watching the last couple of seasons complete on DVD.

I’m glad that they’re keeping Atlantis around, though I don’t think that show has ever equalled SG1 when the latter was at its peak. The writing has always seemed muted, somehow, though I love the character Rodney MacKay (sp?). Perhaps with SG1 off the air, Atlantis will take off and grow the way DS9 did once TNG and B5 were off the air. The departure of the latter two shows gave DS9 the ability to cut loose and spread its wings without cramping other series, and perhaps with the whole Stargate universe to itself now, Atlantis will be able to tell stories without having to worry about stepping on SG1’s toes.

I’d be interested to see what the ratings have been for SG1 vs. Atlantis. I suspect that SG1’s are higher, but this wasn’t purely a ratings-based situation. The SG1 writers have been having a hard time making do, between franchise aging and the departure of major cast members. It does make creative sense to end the series before its scraping the bottom of the barrel (which I personally don’t think it’s at; I can imagine sci-fi a LOT worse than the current season of SG1).

There’s also something that the above press-release doesn’t mention:

This is a repositioning of where the network is putting its money. A cable network only has so much money to devote to developing new proramming, and there are only so many serieses that Sci-Fi can produce at a given time. So a major reason SG1 is being put out to pasture is to make way for a new series: Caprica. The Battlestar Galactica franchise has been so successful (it WAS able to get me to tune in weekly last season) that the network is wanting more in that mold. So what we’re watching is a pirouette between the two franchises, with the young, dynamic Galactica series taking the lead over the still-watchable but somewhat-worn-around-the-edges Stargate franchise.

It would be impolitic to say such things in a press release announcing the end of SG1, though.

Wouldn’t sit well with Stargate fans to say "We can’t produce an extra new series each week, so SG1 is going away to allow us to do Caprica."

That wasn’t the only reason for the decision, of course. The ones mentioned above were, too, and ratings decline certainly was as well. But Caprica’s arrival no doubt played a role.