Month: March 2007

Saturn’s North Pole Hexagon

Saturn_hexagonA reader writes:

Any thought on THIS?

I was re-reading Lovecraft’s “A Shadow out of Time” yesterday and later in the day this odd image makes the news.

Maybe it’s an inter-planetary elder sign or maybe the “stars are right” for you know who’s return.  I think Lovecraft would have found it amusing to make it into a part of his Mythos. 

I think you’re right that Lovecraft definitely would have worked it into his mythos, if he’d known about it.

Clark Ashton Smith would have had fun with it, too, if he’d known about it when writing The Door to Saturn.

My own thoughts are these:

1) It’s very, very strange that Saturn would have a hexagonal storm at it’s north pole.

2) Maybe the Saturnian Santa Claus has a thing for geometry.

3) I expect Kara Thrace to fly out of it as part of her destiny to lead the rag-tag fleet to Earth.

MORE HERE.

(CHT to the second reader, who also spotted the Kara Thrace connection!)

The first reader also asks:

By the way,  several months ago you blogged about “the Mound” story.  It’s been many years since I’ve read it and I was wondering how you knew the exact location to have found it by the satellite images?

I discovered that the story The Mound was based on a real geological formation known as Ghost Mound, between Hydro and Binger, Oklahoma and found its latitude and longitude recorded in a list of GPS coordinates for people wanting to visit various mound formations in the area. (Here’s another source listing them.)

MORE HERE.

AND HERE.

AND HERE.

USCCB Smackdown

One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.

Yet, What I refuse to promote is outright Lucifer-ous type of attacks and rebellion against the Church Our Lord had established from those who disguise themselves as true Catholics and, even far worse than that, have the blasphemy which lies at the core of these attacks disguised as Traditional Catholic Teaching, which itself is so far from the Truth!
Many of John’s post have promoted disobedience and disrespect against the Catholic Church and, in fact, its Traditional Teachings. Papal Authority is at the heart of Traditional Catholic Teaching, the very core that, in fact, many brave Saints like Thomas More and hundreds of others throughout the centuries gave their very lives for since it is this Authority which Christ Himself established for HIS Church in St. Peter and his Successors.
Yet, not only does John attack this Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church, but he villainously goes on to actually disguise his rebellious attacks against the Church as well as this refusal to recognize Papal Authority as even Traditional Catholic Teaching!
Further, he has the gall to declare Pope John Paul II as well as Pope Benedict XVI as APOSTATES!
It was bad enough that he had spread calumny and other such treacherous lies against JP II and B16 as well as Mother Teresa in previous posts, but he goes as far as placing upon himself an authority that is not his own!
If John has the right to spew his venomous attacks against the Church and purposely misrepresent actual Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church here (as some have wrongfully advocated — and even compared him to a Saint, of all things!) then I don’t see why folks like Maguire shouldn’t be allowed to continue to do the same!
Thus, John holds nothing of Traditional Catholic Church Teaching as Sacred nor does he care for the many Souls that have been saved and converted to the Catholic Faith!
John would rather that Protestants as well as non-Christians be damned to Hell than even join the Catholic Church! If you actually read many of his posts to me, he condescendingly looks down on Protestants and non-Christians as something less than dirt and treats them with such disdain and hate!
If this is the kind of True Catholic that the Rad Trads adore and promote, better that I become a Protestant than a servant of Lucifer as this!

Readers of JA.O know about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith–the universal Church’s doctrinal watchdog group. What many may not know, though, is that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has an equivalent body, known as the Committee on Doctrine.

Whereas the CDF is tasked with dealing with global problems in the area of theology, the COD is tasked with dealing with local (i.e., national) ones, and it’s just delivered a stinging warning about the writings of one of our home-grown dissenters, Daniel Maguire of Marquette University.

GET THE STORY.

MAGUIRE TALKS BACK HERE.

It’s interesting how Maguire accuses the COD of being "obsessed with sex" when it was his writings on sexual issues that contained clear contradictions on Church teaching.

Marquette’s response is also interesting.

And disappointing.

Bringing Children to Mass

A reader writes:

I have a baptized daughter who is a few months old. My wife and I went home to my parents this weekend. They went to Church Saturday night as we were visiting other relatives. On Sunday morning my mom offered to watch our daughter while we went to Church. I agreed.

On the way to church I began to wonder if not brining my daughter to church was a sin. Was it? And how grave was it? I abstained from communion because I wasn’t sure.

I’m not clear from your answer whether you took your daughter to Mass Saturday or if it was just Sunday morning when you didn’t take her to Mass. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because a child that young is not required to attend Mass. The Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 11 Merely
ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or
received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law
expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

The law regarding who has to go to Mass on Sunday (or Saturday evening; either satisfies the Sunday obligation) does not specify an age. It simply says:

Can.  1247 On Sundays and other holy days of
obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and
affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the
Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

Since there is no specification of age here, canon 11 means that children under 7 years of age (or people who lack the use of reason or people who are not baptized) are not bound to attend Mass.

It thus was not a sin to leave your daughter in the care of your mother.

Parents do have a moral obligation to ensure that as their children age, they get in the habit of going to Mass so that once the obligation kicks in at 7 years of age they’re used to it, but this is not an obligation that means they have to be there every single Sunday, and it certainly does not mean that children less than a year old have to be taken to Mass. Children that young are incapable of forming the habit of going to Mass.

The Declericalization of the Global South

Use ’em or lose ’em?

That’s a question facing Church leaders in many parts of the global south. The first ’em refers to lay people willing to take on roles traditionally performed (if at all) by priests. The second ’em refers to lay people in general.

Here’s the dynamic: Many Catholics in the developing world have little access to priests, but they are quite religious and want to be part of a Christian community, and there are all these helpful Pentecostals interested in showering them with attention and pastoral care.

For example (EXCERPT):

One Honduran woman, for example, told me a story about her sister-in-law who had been hospitalized with a form of cancer. She did not belong to a parish that had a resident priest, and the overworked hospital chaplain was only able to see her briefly and episodically. Meanwhile, a local Pentecostal community had members in her room every day, comforting her, bringing her flowers, and seeing to the needs of her family while she was away. It’s no mystery, this Honduran woman told me, why her sister-in-law considered joining that Pentecostal church. In the end, the family persuaded her to remain Catholic, but that’s not how these things often turn out.

That kind of situation may be responsible for why Pentecostalism–and Protestantism in general–is making such headway in Latin America. You just don’t need the kind of rigorous commitment and training on the part of Protestant ministers in that context that you do of priests. All they need to do is hang out their shingle, and with the help of others in their churches, you’ve got instant pastoral workers.

It’s entirely different in an environment where the priest is expected to do everything and it’s very hard to become a priest, requiring a lot of training and commitment on the part of candidates.

So if you want to compete (i.e., retain souls), you’re going to either need to radically up the number of priests–which would likely entail lowering standards for them–or shift many responsibilities from priests to lay people.

In the Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict spoke against lowering standards for priests, which would point in the direction of increased lay involvement in pastoral work.

Here in the global north, increasing lay involvement has often (not always) been used as a tool to try to strip the priesthood of its uniqueness, along with an associated liberal theological agenda.

But John Allen thinks that’s not the case in Latin America.

GET THE STORY.

Fr. Fessio Re-Hired

Just got word that, following a meeting with AMU faculty members who expressed concern about the future of the institution, Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, was offered a position at AMU.

The new position is not provost but a triple position of theologian-in-residence, being a member of the theology faculty, and also head of the university’s abroad program.

Fr. Fessio has accepted.

Interestingly, he is also scheduled to be inducted into the Catholic education hall of fame.

Specific Confessions

A reader writes:

Can you invalidate a confession by not being specific enough in
confessing your sins?

In particular, if you say "I read something I shouldn’t have" instead
of "I read a book with sexual material that I knew might or would be an
occasion of sin," have you actually confessed the sin?

I have made several confessions like this, assuming it was okay, but
now I am suddenly not sure.

It is possible to invalidate a confession if one deliberately refuses to confess in adequate detail, however that does not apply in this case. I’ll explain why.

First, a word about what adequate detail is: We are expected–to the best of our reasonable ability–to confess our mortal sins in number (how many times you did it) and kind. Kind is where the question of specificity comes in, and the rule is that we are to confess specifically enough that anything that affects the species of the sin is mentioned.

To understand that, one needs to have a grasp of the difference between genus and species. Genus is the general category to which a sin belongs. Species is the variation that distinguishes one sin from others in the same general category.

For example, saying "I committed a sexual sin" would cover only the genus of the act but does not address the species of sexual sin that has been committed. One would thus need to say "I committed adultery" or "I committed fornication" or "I committed a homosexual act" or "I committed masturbation" or "I committed incest" or whatever the case may be. Adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, masturbation, incest, etc., are all the various species of sexual sin.

Now, because of the shame involved in confessing many of these things, penitents often use circumlocutions to convey the idea while blunting the sense of shame that is involved. For example, they may say, "I had impure thoughts" rather than "I wilfully engaged in sexual fantasies about someone I’m not married to." "Impure thoughts" is code for what they did, and priests understand what it means. Technically, your thoughts could be impure in all sorts of way not involving sex (i.e., they could be tainted, and thus not pure, by any kind of sin you wilfully entertained), but priests know people mean they entertained improper sexual thoughts when they say this.

The important thing is not the words that are used but that the priest understands the species of the sin that is being confessed. As long as he understands–or as long as you reasonably believe that he understands–then you have confessed adequately.

If you said something like "I read something I shouldn’t have" then priests are quite likely (given a knowledge of penitents and how often sex comes up in confession) that you were confessing deliberate exposure to materials that could produce sexual temptation. If someone says that they read something they shouldn’t have, and they’re too embarassed to say why they shouldn’t have read it, sex is going to be the first thing that suggests itself. Unless a priest knew that you were in the habit of reading things likely to produce grave temptations of some other nature, a normal priest is going to assume that you’re talking about sex.

If he has doubts about what you’re confessing then he should ask for a clarification, and in these cases it seems that the priests you confessed to didn’t ask, indicating that they understood your meaning.

It thus seems to me that "I read something I shouldn’t have" is basically the same kind of thing as "I need to confess impure thoughts." Neither is an explicit statement, but both are going to be understood by a confessor.

Even if they weren’t, though, you would not have invalidated the confession because you believed that you were adequately confessing. You therefore were not deliberately holding anything back that you knew you needed to confess. As long as that’s the case, your confession is formally integral (to use a bit of technical jargon that means you intended to make a complete confession, or one complete enough for validity) and the absolution will be valid.

20

By Their Lives of Judas You Shall Know Them

CNS is reporting:

Curiosity about the New Testament figure of Judas and a feeling that his reputation as the worst sinner in history "isn’t fair, isn’t right" led British novelist Jeffrey Archer to attempt a new version of the story.

Archer, presenting "The Gospel According to Judas by Benjamin Iscariot" at a March 20 press conference in Rome, said he is a practicing Anglican who wanted his new book to be backed up by solid biblical scholarship.

So he convinced Father Francis J. Moloney, provincial of the Salesians in Australia and a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, to collaborate.

Now, I don’t have a problem with someone writing a book called "The Gospel According to Judas" or writing novels about Judas or about Judas’s perceptions of Christ. I don’t even have a problem with someone who wants to present Judas as something other than the worst sinner in history–something that the Church doesn’t teach that he was. One could hold that Judas had diminished culpability for his sins and that someone else in history had a higher degree of culpability.

But I do have a problem with this:

Archer’s main thesis is that Judas tried to prevent Jesus’ arrest and execution by enlisting the help of a scribe to get Jesus out of Jerusalem and back to Galilee where the Romans supposedly would ignore him.

In the end, the scribe betrays Judas, which means Judas unwittingly betrays Jesus.

Both Archer and Father Moloney doubt that Judas committed suicide, a story recounted only in the Gospel of St. Matthew.

The Benjamin Iscariot in Archer’s title is Judas’ fictitious son, who — years after the death of Jesus — finds his father living in an ascetic community near the Dead Sea. His father reluctantly gives his version of what happened to Jesus and the son writes it down.

I’m sorry, but this is unacceptable on two grounds. First, it flatly contradicts the biblical accounts of Judas’ death. It would be one thing if the author made it clear that he was not writing about our universe and that he was dealing with a parallel Judas and what happened to him, but that’s not the case. The author and Fr. Moloney both cast doubt on the inspired text as it applies to our universe. This is an unacceptable misrepresentation of the facts of history. It’s not a case of them proposing a novel or unexpected way to harmonize the accounts of Judas’s death; it’s them flatly rejecting the biblical accounts.

Second, the author has fallen into the perennial trap of trying to exonerate Judas. That’s not the same thing as portraying him in a way that nuances his character and motives. It’s not the same thing as just saying "He may not have been the worst sinner in history." It’s flatly rejecting the betrayal that Judas performed. On this account, Judas didn’t betray Jesus; he was himself betrayed.

Sorry, but that’s not going to cut it. Not if we’re being asked to entertain what might have been the case with the Judas in our universe.

I don’t know what it is with authors (and filmmakers) who want to rehabilitate Judas in this fashion.

But I suspect it’s this: They themselves have an uneasy conscience.

They themselves feel that they have betrayed Christ (as have we all by our sins), but rather than throw themselves on Christ’s mercy and accepting his grace, they want to rationalize or excuse their sins and so–using the character of Judas as a psychological surrogate for themselves–they rationalize and excuse his in fictional form.

The underlying psychological message they’re trying to give themselves is: Hey, if Judas didn’t really betray Christ–if he was a tragic victim of circumstance–then that’s what I am, too. I haven’t really betrayed him. I’m just a victim of fate, too, and I’m not really responsible for what I’ve done.

By their lives of Judas you shall know them.

GET THE STORY.