This Week's Show

Here’s my appearance on Catholic Answers Live this week (RealAudio format):

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • Jerry Usher asks an apologetics question!
  • Myths about the "Council of Jamnia"
  • Can you pray to your deceased father?
  • Why do Protestants not accept the deuterocanonicals if some are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls?
  • How to find out "the Secret of the Masons"?
  • Lying to a priest before marriage.
  • Apostolic exhortations vs. encyclicals
  • Different patens at Mass
  • How to defend your faith to a Jehovah’s Witness
  • Discovering a drafting problem in the Catechism!
  • To whom does the automatic excommunication for abortion apply?
  • Can imprimaturs be wrong and get yanked?

This Week’s Show

Here’s my appearance on Catholic Answers Live this week (RealAudio format):

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • Jerry Usher asks an apologetics question!
  • Myths about the "Council of Jamnia"
  • Can you pray to your deceased father?
  • Why do Protestants not accept the deuterocanonicals if some are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls?
  • How to find out "the Secret of the Masons"?
  • Lying to a priest before marriage.
  • Apostolic exhortations vs. encyclicals
  • Different patens at Mass
  • How to defend your faith to a Jehovah’s Witness
  • Discovering a drafting problem in the Catechism!
  • To whom does the automatic excommunication for abortion apply?
  • Can imprimaturs be wrong and get yanked?

How Did "Liberal" Become A Bad Word?

HISTORIAN JOHN LUCAKS ANSWERS THIS QUESTION.

As to why it happened, the nut of his answer is this:

Beneath these political and ideological sentiments there was the sense,

more or less apparent, of a general disappointment with liberal ideals.

There was the inclination, sometimes fatal, of liberals to take the

ideas of the Enlightenment to extremes: to propagate a public morality

devoid of, if not altogether opposed to, religion; to insist more and

more on institutionalizing the promotion of justice, at times even at

the expense of truth; to emphasize freedom of speech, often at the

expense of thought; to make abortion legal; to approve same-sex

marriages and affirmative action.

To an increasing mass of Americans, "liberal" began to mean — rightly

or wrongly — a toleration, if not a promotion, of what many considered

to be immoralities.

That’s why it happened, but the context of when and how it happened is most interesting.

CHECK IT OUT.

How Did “Liberal” Become A Bad Word?

HISTORIAN JOHN LUCAKS ANSWERS THIS QUESTION.

As to why it happened, the nut of his answer is this:

Beneath these political and ideological sentiments there was the sense,
more or less apparent, of a general disappointment with liberal ideals.
There was the inclination, sometimes fatal, of liberals to take the
ideas of the Enlightenment to extremes: to propagate a public morality
devoid of, if not altogether opposed to, religion; to insist more and
more on institutionalizing the promotion of justice, at times even at
the expense of truth; to emphasize freedom of speech, often at the
expense of thought; to make abortion legal; to approve same-sex
marriages and affirmative action.

To an increasing mass of Americans, "liberal" began to mean — rightly
or wrongly — a toleration, if not a promotion, of what many considered
to be immoralities.

That’s why it happened, but the context of when and how it happened is most interesting.

CHECK IT OUT.

Period Songs, Period Instruments

Mark_banjo_trinidad_1The banjo-playing historian I mentioned the other day who I met on a train was Mark Gardner (left, though he wasn’t in full regalia when I met him).

He told me about a recent CD he had made with his partner Rex Rideout using period instruments. It’s called Frontier Favorites: Old-Time Music of the Wild West. Afterwards, I bought a copy from CD Baby.

I was very pleased.

Mark plays banjo and Rex plays fiddle, and they are the only musicians on the CD, but despite this the songs never sounded weak or threadbare. I was, frankly, amazed at HOW MUCH MUSIC two men can make using only one banjo, one fiddle, and their voices.

LISTEN HERE FOR AN EXAMPLE.

The fact that they were using period instruments (i.e., not a modern,
steel banjo or modern fiddle) also had a major effect on the sound. (You can see Mark holding such an "organic" banjo in the picture.) Not being a music critic, I don’t know how to articulate the difference, but there is a more raw, natural sound to the instruments they are playing than what you would hear on a contemporary instruments CD.

The experience generated by the CD is the closest approximation of what it would be like to hear real 19th century musicians playing. It transports one back in time more effectively than any similar old-time CD I’ve heard, and I heartily recommend it.

One of the fascinating things about the songs of this period that can’t go without mention is their lyrics. Contrary to contemporary chronological snobbery, the folks who lived in the 19th century weren’t a bunch of dummies. In fact, they were more highly educated in some subjects than we are.

For example, how many times recently have you heard Latin used in a song? Well, you will in Mark & Rex’s "Old Dan Tucker" (a 19th century comedy song about a buffoon who behaves oddly and can’t do anything right). One of the verses goes:

Here’s my razor, in good order!
Magnum bonum, just have bought ‘er!
Sheep shell the oats; Tucker shell the corn.
I’ll shave you, son, when the water gets warm!

Magnum bonum is Latin for "great good," here meaning something like "very good" or "excellent quality." It says something about the people of the time that they could be expected to understand the phrase and recognize its relevance to a just-bought straight razor in a comedy song.

This isn’t the only time that the lyrics presuppose knowledge that moderns may not have. For example, the song Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines is filled with such references. This song, which was the wildly popular after it was first introduced (though it didn’t always have the patter that Mark and Rex include–and Mark is the vocalist on this one), is a treasure trove of cultural references. Also a comedy song, it concerns an incompetent military man (Capt. Jinks), who is the origin of the modern word "jinx" (meaning, a cursed or unlucky individual).

The refrain of the song goes:

I’m Captain Jinks of the horse marines.
I feed my horse on corn and beans.
And often live beyond my means.
Tho’ a captain in the army.

Here the jokes are densely-packed.

First, there was no such thing as the "horse marines." Marines are military men who travel by sea, and horses don’t usually do well on the sea. Classically, marines are either infantry or artillery. The idea of "horse marines" is a joke about a non-existent group (though completeness compels me to point out that some actual military groups have named themselves after this joke; there was a group of cowboys who patrolled the Texas coastline during the Texas Revolution who called themselves "horse marines" and also a group of U.S. Marines in the twentieth century in China who similarly styled themselves). The term "horse marine" thus came to refer to a member of a non-existent unit or, simply, to a misfit.

Second, nobody would feed their horse on corn and beans. In the 19th century those constituted "people food" and would be more expensive than what one would feed one’s horse on (hay, oats). Hence, Capt. Jinks often lives "beyond his means." A diet of pure corn and beans also wouldn’t be good for a horse nutritionally.

"Tho’ a captain in the Army," Captain Jinks is thus a very unfortunate and comical guy. The cards are stacked against him, and 21st century denizens may not fully appreciate the jokes at his expense.

Despite this, Mark & Rex’s CD is a terrific introduction to old-time music, as well as a fascinating re-creation of what it would have been like to transport back into the past and hear actual musicians of the period.

Highly recommended.

GET THE CD.

Ad Limina Doctrinarum Ecclesiae

Jamie at Ad Limina Apostolorum provides some commentary on my recent post about the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

His central thesis–that the Compendium is viewed as an elaboration of a particular subject dealt with in the Catechism of the Catholic Church–is certainly correct. I think, however, that another thesis he advances must be understood with some nuance.

He writes (excerpts; and the "yeah!" is Jamie rather than me):

I share Akin’s concern that the social teaching of the Church not be so readily equated with its moral and dogmatic teaching, which admittedly admit [yeah!] of a greater degree of solemnity. But this concern is balanced with another (which Jimmy certainly shares as well) that the Church’s social teaching not be itself downgraded to the level of ‘optional’ or ‘throw-away,’ a hodgepodge of socioeconomic suggestions paperclipped to the Really Important Stuff ™ like the Pope and the Sacraments and all that.

[T]he fact that the Catechism already contains the Church’s social teaching, at least in summary form, brings up another point. It simply doesn’t make sense to think of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a collection of the Really Important Stuff – like hard, dogmatic teaching – with the Church’s social thought playing the the ugly red-headed stepchild. If the Church’s social teaching is included in the Catechism, then it is the Really Important Stuff as well, or at least integral to it.

I would press the question of whether the Church’s social teachings can be so easily separated from the Church’s dogmatic and moral teachings. Is not the Church’s social teaching not moral in its very essence (even if it rarely advances to the level of solemn, dogmatic statements about morality)? Is it not also a ‘doctrine’ in the fullest sense of the word? In fact, the Holy Father has claimed the Church’s principles of social doctrine, as enunciated especially in Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, "belong to the Church’s doctrinal patrimony" (Centesimus Annus 3), constituting a "genuine doctrine" (5), and "an essential part of the Christian message" (5). John XXIII called it "an integral part of the Christian conception of life" (Statement on New Social Justice Compendium, Cardinal Martino (I know, I know, but at least give him the time of day) said, "When, in any way whatsoever, one loses the keen awareness that this Social Doctrine belongs to the Church’s mission, Social Doctrine itself is manipulated, falling prey to various forms of ambiguity and partisan application."

I’ve quoted Jamie at some length because he makes a number of points that need to be addressed for purposes of pointing out the nuance with which they need to be understood (and one point on which I disagree).

Here goes.

Continue reading “Ad Limina Doctrinarum Ecclesiae”

Americans Pretending To Be Canadians

Hmmm . . .

SOME AMERICANS ARE PRETENDING TO BE CANDADIANS WHEN THEY GO ABROAD.

Some are doing so to get out of awkward social situations where furriners say anti-American things.

If I were in such a situation, and if I were human, I believe my response would be "Go to hell." . . . If I were human.

But if an al-Qa’eda operative pointed a AK-47 in my face and wanted to know my nationality, I’d be sore tempted to do "the maple leaf masquerade."

Don’t know how plausible I’d be doing it. Could probably fake a Bob & Doug Mackenzie accent and speech pattern, but the cowboy hat, duster, and boots (all of which were worn on my most recent foreign trip–to Canada, ironically enough) would be dead giveaways.

Still, Canadians and Americans are similar in many ways.

Was reminded of a bit from the Canadian sketch comedy show The Kids In The Hall (which I didn’t watch but occasionally surfed through) in which a Canadian visiting the Philippines was repeatedly asked if he was an American.

He finally responded: "Noooooo . . . I’m a Canadian. . . . That’s like an American . . . but without the gun."