February 2005 – Page 8

Immolation?

A reader writes:

Quick question. I am a recent convert from Evangelical Protestantism (4 years) and my 17 year old son is the first in the family to decide to follow me across the Tiber. However, he is still attending an Evangelical High School and is getting quite a bit of propaganda from one particular teacher. I am confident Stephen can hold his own but he got hit with something I had not seen before and thought you could help. He was confronted with the following:

"You are clearly mistaken when you claim that the Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus is killed over and over again at every Mass. The fact is, the Vatican II documents state on the bottom of page 102 that Jesus is immolated at the point of consecration. The definition of Immolated according to the Webster Dictionary is, To kill as a sacrifice; To kill (oneself) by fire. To destroy. Sorry, there is no way around it."

This is a good example of why you can’t do theology by reading a standard, secular dictionary.

In theology certain words are used as terms of art, which means that they have a special, technical meaning that is not always reflected in popular usage.

The phenomenon is not limited to Catholics. A number of years ago I read a book (Chosen by God) in which the Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul complained that a secular dictionary (Webster’s, if I remember correctly) had a Lutheran-based definition of a particular term ("predestination" or "elect" or something like that).

Though not limited to Catholics, the problem does affect Catholics in a particular way since the use of terms among Catholic theologians is often determined by what it means in another language: especially Latin.

The writers of secular English dictionaries, not being Catholic theologians (or any theologians), are focused on words’ meanings in colloquial English and often are simply unaware of the technical meaning that the term has among theologians.

This is what is happening with immolation.

It comes from Latin. (Surprise!) It is based on in + mola. In is a preposition with a fairly wide range of meaning. It can mean in, on, at, into, and other things. Mola refers to ground grain (i.e., flour), particularly when mixed with salt.

In ancient times it was customary to sprinkle mola on a sacrifice, and this was referred to with the words in and mola, which became inmolatio, which became immolatio, which became immolation.

According to its word origins, immolation meant "to sprinkle with mola (flour mixed with salt)" according to the ancient custom. It then came to mean "to offer in sacrifice" and, since most (not all) sacrifices were killed, it came to mean "to kill," "to destroy."

Having said that, the Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus is killed anew in the Mass. His sufferings on the Cross have nothing added to them in th Mass.

There are two explanations for this that you will encounter in Catholic circles.

(First, though, let me complain about the fact that the person who put this objection to your son apparently cited a page number in a particular edition of the Vatican II documents–as if all editions shared the same pagination! What we really need to track this down is a document name, such as Sacrosacntum Concilium, with a section or "paragraph" number.)

First, some individuals have a kind of "time warp" theory, according to which the Mass warps the events of Calvary into the present. Jesus thus does not suffer and die again, but his suffering and dying in the first few decades of the first century is made present today.

A careful reading of Church documents, however, suggests that this is not what happens during Mass. For example, the Credo of the People of God (issued by Paul VI in 1968, just after Vatican II) states:

We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence. . . .

The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence [i.e., the glorious, heavenly existence] remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us.

This makes it sound as if the Eucharistic sacrifice involves the Christ of the present, enthroned in heaven and not (currently) suffering on the Cross. The sacrifice is the same in the sense that the priest is the same (Christ) and the offering is the same (Christ) and the purpose is the same (our salvation), but the mode of offering is different: As other Church documents stress, the Eucharist is an "unbloody" sacrifice (one in which his blood is not shed) but in which he (as high priest) offers himself to God for our benefit, in view of his work on the Cross.

Whichever way you go–the "time warp" theory or the "heavenly existence" theory–Jesus does not suffer and die again in the Mass. One makes present old sufferings. The other doesn’t involve suffering at all but an offering of himself as he is in the present. Both involve only death and suffering in the "once for all" sacrifice in the first century.

So sorry.

Christ doesn’t suffer or die a second (or further) time in the Mass.

Just doesn’t happen.

Fortunately, some contemporary English dictionaries acknowledge the history of the word immolation such that it doesn’t always require the deah of the offering. For example, Merriam-Webster’s says:

Main Entry: im·mo·late
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin immolatus, past participle of immolare, from in- + mola spelt grits; from the custom of sprinkling victims with sacrificial meal; akin to Latin molere to grind — more at MEAL
1 : to offer in sacrifice; especially : to kill as a sacrificial victim
2 : to kill or destroy often by fire
– im·mo·la·tor /-"lA-t&r/ noun

The qualifier "especially : to kill as a sacrificial victim" indicates that the term does not always require the death of the offering. It can simply mean "to offer in sacrifice."

And thus Christ does not suffer or die anew in the Mass.

Them’s the facts.

United Way Query

A reader writes:

My place of employment is doing a drive to raise money for the United Way. I went to their Website, where they state a position of neutrality on abortion, yet have collaborated with Planned Parenthood on projects. Hence, I view this as an indirect support of abortion, despite their statement on their Website.

You are perceptive.

The United Way is deceptive.

MORE INFO HERE.

Therefore, I’ve decided not to contribute to the drive. However, I was asked to help with the collection of money.

Would this still make me compliant, or am I being scrupulous about this matter.

Well, if you comply with the request then you would, by definition, be compliant. That’s not what you’re concerned about though. I assume that you are wondering whether you would be morally culpable.

In this case the money is not being given directly to abortionists to do abortions but to a charitable agency that then, one way or another, gives some portion of it to abortionists. That’s poor stewardship, but then any time you give money to any fund there is a risk or even the known fact that some of it will not be used as it should be. If you were to maintain the position that you can’t have anything to do with such a fund then you’re going to end up not giving to anybody, and the good that you could otherwise do will not be done, including all the other charities that the fund would have supported, the abortionists only being a small percentage of the fund’s outlay.

I say that, not to encourage you to give to the United Way (I, myself, will not give to them until they change their policy on abortion; I’ll give my money elsewhere) but to point out the remoteness of your act from the evil that you may foresee the fund will do.

Remoteness is important in moral theology. Since there is a human will (the fund manager) intervening between the donor and the recipient, the donor’s cooperation is not as direct as if he were himself giving money to an evil cause.

In Catholic moral theology, remote cooperation with evil is sometimes permissible. It has to be because, since humans are sinners, remote cooperation with evil is unavoidable. That guy you paid ten dollars for the pizza may use the money to buy a porn magazine. You can’t control that. You have to make an up or down decision on whether you’re going to do business with someone, and you are not responsible for micromanaging every aspect of what they do with the money you give them.

A key is whether you are, with your will, endorsing the evil that someone else will (inevitably) do with the money you give them (either as a payment or a donation). If you endorse the evil then your cooperation with it is formal, and this is never permitted. If, on the other hand, you do not endorse the evil then your cooperation is only material, and remote material cooperation with evil is permitted . . .

. . . for a proportionate reason.

If you have a proportionate reason (e.g., you’ll suffer in some way at work if you don’t honor the request to collect the money) then, since the act of collecting money is morally licit in itself and since only a tiny portion of it will be used for evil and since you are not directly supporting evil (it’s only remote cooperation, remember) and since someone else will collect the money if you don’t, it seems to me that in that case it would be morally licit for you to collect the money.

So I wouldn’t say that you are being scrupulous. It’s good that you’re trying to think these things through.

Hope this helps!

Eucharistic Adoration Query

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy, A few of us in our parish are trying to get Eucharistic Adoration established in our parish (Prince of Peace) and it has been a difficult road so far. We have a new pastor (6 mo) who is a Cannon Lawyer but is willling to listen to us. In the past our previous pastor wouldn’t even consider it. Our parish doesn’t even own a monstrance.

Our parish has a huge debt (almost a million dollars) left by the previous pastor and we are not allowed to have any sort of fund raising for a monstrance until this is eliminated. Msgr.wants all resources to go the reduction of the debt.

Sorry for the long backgroud story, here is my question. They (the Worship commission and Msgr.) maybe willing to let us have once a month adoration (with Eucharist in the ciborium) if we can show them just how we will open and close our day and who will be responsible for this. Where can I go to find the proper prayers for the opening and closing of Adoration?

Okay, permit me to be pedantic for a moment. What you’re talking about isn’t just Eucharistic adoration. I know that people always say that, but technically what you’re talking about is Eucharistic exposition. You can have Eucharistic adoration any time you like by simply adoring Jesus in all the Tabernacles of the world. You don’t even have to open your eyes or get out of bed to do that. You are wanting the Eucharist to be exposed for the adoration of the faithful–which is great! I’m just pointing out a terminology issue. Sometimes people semi-consciously absorb the idea that they can’t adore Jesus in the Eucharist if it isn’t exposed, which is not true.

As to what prayers need to be said, the document that needs to be consulted is called Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass, which is contained in The Rites, vol. 1 (a book well worth getting) or you can just

DOWNLOAD IT OFF THE DIOCESE OF FARGO’S WEB SITE. (WARNING! Evil file format [.pdf]!)

When one consults the document, one finds this:

EXPOSITION

93. After the people have assembled, a song may be sung while the minister comes to the altar. If the holy eucharist is not reserved at the altar where the exposition is to take place, the minister puts on a humeral veil and brings the sacrament from the place of reservation; he is accompanied by servers or by the faithful with lighted candles.

The ciborium or monstrance should be placed upon the table of the altar which is covered with a cloth. If exposition with the monstrance is to extend over a long period, a throne in an elevated position may be used, but his should not be too lofty or distant. After exposition, if the monstrance is used, the minister incenses the sacrament. If the adoration is to be lengthy, he may then withdraw.

94. In the case of more solemn and lengthy exposition, the host should be consecrated in the Mass which immediately precedes the exposition and after communion should be placed in the monstrance upon the altar. The Mass ends with the prayer after communion, and the concluding rites are omitted. Before the priest leaves, he may place the blessed sacrament on the throne and incense it.

ADORATION

95. During the exposition there should be prayers, songs, and readings to direct the attention fo the faithful to the worship of Christ the Lord.

To encourage a prayerful spirit, there should be readings from scripture with a homily or brief exhortations to develop a better understanding of the eucharistic mystery. It is also desirable for the people to respond to the word of God by singing and to spend some periods of time in religious silence.

96. Part of the liturgy of the hours, especially the principal hours, may be celebrated before the blessed sacrament when there is a lengthy period of exposition. This liturgy extends the praiseand thanksgiving offered to God in the eucharistic celebration to the several hours of the day; it directs the prayers of the Church to Christ and through him to the Father in the name of the whole world.

Also, one should note that the document provides that:

91. The ordinary minister for exposition of the eucharist is a priest or deacon. At the end of the period of adoration, before the reposition, he blesses the congregation with the sacrament.

In the absence of a priest or deacon or if they are lawfully impeded, an acolyte, another special minister of communion, or another person appointed by the local Ordinary may publicly expose and later repose the eucharist for the adoration of the faithful.

Such ministers may open the tabernacle and also, as required, place the ciborium on the altar orplace the host in the monstrance. At the end of the period of adoration, they replace the blessed sacrament in the tabernacle. It is not lawful, however, for them to give the blessing with the sacrament

From this one may conclude (a) that laity may expose and repose the Blessed Sacrament (just in case there were to be any confusion on this point, as there sometimes is) and (b) there are no specific prayers that are required.

That being said, you might want to check out the book Order for the Solemn Exposition of the Holy Eucharist. It may contain useful resources as well, though I have a little hesitancy in giving it a full thumbs up because I haven’t looked at it myself and the publisher (Liturgical Press) sometimes includes non-authoritative documents alongside authoritative ones without adequately noting the difference. Still, if I were engaged in setting this up in my parish, I’d get a copy . . . but then read it carefully with an eye to what’s definitely authoritative and what might not be.

We have people lined up (2-3 per hour) who want to participate.

Cool!

I was told this was" presumptious" on my part to line up people when it hasn’t been approved yet.

Ihh. You’re doing a feasibility study.

We wanted once a week from 10-4pm to start but it looks like they may approve only once a month.

Well, you take what you can get and then try to build from there.

Good luck!

Music Copying

A reader writes:

I was wondering if you have or could write on your blog on the subject of copying music–covering all aspects. Some of the experts on the EWTN website have touched on it, but they are not really up on all the technology.

Hoooo-eeee! All aspects? ‘Fraid not on a blog. The field’s too big. But I’ll do what I can to answer the points you raise in your e-mail.

I definitely don’t want to do anything sinful. However, if some form of copying is ok, I would like to do it. I always thought it was ok to tape some songs from the radio onto a cassette tape. Now I’m not so sure.

They have sold cassette recorders for years and blank tapes. For years I have been taping Christmas music and classical music from the radio for my own listening pleasure. Also, I have taped with my VCR some musical programs shown on PBS (like operas) and saved them for future viewing over the years. Now I’m wondering if I’ve been stealing for years. Are we allowed to tape like this?

You definitely can record songs off the radio or TV (whether to a cassette or any other medium) for your personal use. This was settled a coon’s age ago by a legal case that defined such personal use of broadcast material (TV shows included) as kosher under U.S. copyright law. This is not considered stealing. (Perhaps one of the lawyers reading the blog can fill in the case citation in the comments box.) When technologies like the cassette recorder and the VCR were introduced there were lawsuits trying to get their manufacture stopped, and the lawsuits failed. It’s okay to record off radio or TV for personal use.

I recently read somewhere (during a Google search), that companies or artists (I don’t remember which) get part of the money from blank tapes. Does this cover any stealing aspect?

To the best of my knowledge, this is not happening. You may have read someone’s proposal for how to address the current situation, but I have no evidence that this is being done. While it initially sounds plausible and might work for purposes of satisfying the recording companies, it would be harder to get royalties to the artists on this basis. Fights would errupt over whether a given artist’s fans are taping him more and therefore he needs a bigger chuck of the pie than some other artist with equally large record sales but who (it is claimed) has fans who copy him less.

I have learned that it is wrong to share music with family or friends. In other words, I can lend someone my original CD or tape that I bought, but I can’t make a copy for them.

You can’t make a copy for someone else. You can lend them the original recording that you bought and you might be able to lend them a back-up copy you made for yourself (perhaps a lawyer reading could clarify this), but it is my understanding that you would not legally be allowed to simply give someone a copy you made with no intention of getting it back.

These new inventions like the ipod–how does the music get on them? Are these ok?

In principle, they’re fine. They’re simply new recording & playback devices like cassette players or VCRs. As to how the music gets on them, there are several ways, but the most basic two legal ways are:

You buy a CD in a store and then you "rip" it on your computer (i.e., convert it to a file format that your computer knows, such as .mp3 format) with a program like iTunes (comes with the iPod), which then transfers it to the iPod. Since this is making a personal copy from something you bought, it’s allowed.
You go to a music purchase service like musicdownloads.walmart.com and pay for a copy of the song, which you then download and transfer to the iPod. Again: You’re paying for it. A royalty is going to the record company. So it’s all perfectly legal.

Where some folks get into trouble is they download songs from music services that don’t send a royalty to the record company (like Napster when it first started out, though it has now been revamped after being sued mercilessly and is now clealry kosher), which gets the record company hopping mad and claiming that this is illegal behavior. Whether it is illegal behavior is hotly disputed, but the courts have not been casting a friendly eye on the groups doing this.

Another way people get in trouble is ripping their CDs and simply giving copies of the files to friends, which is analogous to making a cassette copy of an album you bought and then giving the cassette to a friend so he doesn’t have to buy the album for himself and the record company and the artist that produced the album get bupkis.

What about the new satellite radios (like Sirius) where we pay a monthly fee? Can we tape and save music from them for our personal use, since we are paying for it? Or are we "stealing" from the artist because we are not buying the song.

My understanding is that, as a broadcast medium, you can tape whatever you want off sattelite radio. Sattelite radio is equivalent to a pay TV service such as cable. If you’re paying for it, you certainly can copy off it for personal use.

You might get into trouble, however, if you had hacked a sattelite or cable service, though. Descrambling something that you aren’t paying for might be regarded as stealing–whether or not you then make tapes from it.

I am trying to grow in holiness, and I don’t want to do anything that is, in essence, stealing.

Good for you. That’s exactly the right attitude to have.

Hope this helps, and God bless!

Teenage Book Recommend?

A reader writes:

I’m one of the refugees from Mark’s blog. I’ve really enjoyed your blog as well, even some of your more "bizarre" stories (what the heck is a "chupacabra" anyway? Reminds me of my children’s favorite magic word "abachugaba"….but I digress.)

My question for you has to do with my teen. She’s 18, and doesn’t have the strongest faith. She is "interested" in a 19 yo boy, who doesn’t have ANY faith, but is open to Catholicism (and is baptized, btw). Do you have any ideas for a book or two to keep on hand should any real questions come up? He’s rather immature, so the Catechism isn’t going to cut it yet. One of my favorite books for info about what Catholics believe is "The Faith Explained" by Fr. Leo Trese, but again, this isn’t for someone to cut their teeth on.

In regard to your first question, a chupacabra is a legendary create credited with sucking the blood from goats and other small livestock (e.g., chickens). The name is Spanish for "goat sucker" (chupa="it sucks" cabra="goat"). I don’t believe in chupacabras, but I have a taste for X-File-like material and find it interesting to entertain the question of whether some of the creatures mentioned on the blog might be part of the things inspiring the chupacabra legend.

As to your second question, I don’t know of how much help I can be. Not being married (unfortunatly), I don’t have any kids of that age (or any age) and so I haven’t researched the books that might be good for them. In the age that we’re talking about, though, they may be ready for easier-to-read books written for adults. I might give him a book of conversion stories like Surprised by Truth.

Other suggestions, folks?

Zachariah & Mary: Double Standard?

A reader writes:

I know there is a different explanation, but when reading the biblical account of Zachary’s not understanding the angels message about John the Baptist, and Mary’s not understanding about when the angel told her about Jesus, they seem the same. Yet, Zacahry was punished while Mary was praised. I’m curious about how to explain this to non-Catholic friends who look for "holes" in Catholic teaching, and sometimes the bible itself.

I appreciate the difficulty you are perceiving, as it’s something I’ve had to ponder myself. And it’s not just a problem for Catholics. I wondered about this as a Protestant.

Here’s what we’re told about the case of Zechariah:

And Zechari’ah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time" [Luke 1:18-20].

And here’s what we’re told about Mary:

And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible."
And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her [Luke 1:34-38].

And we’re told:

[Elizabeth:] "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" [Luke 1:45].

On its face, it could appear that a different standard is being applied to Zechariah than to Mary. Both query the angel about the prophesied miraculous birth, yet when this happens Zechariah is struck mute while Mary is given an explanation and a non-painful sign (i.e., the fact Elizabeth is already miraculously present). Then we have a blessing pronounced upon Mary for her belief.

It seems to me that there are several possible explanations:

We are not meant to understand the praise of Mary as a contrast to Zechariah. It’s simply praise made without reference to his situation. The difference of the signs they are given is just part of the mystery of God’s providence and is not meant to be understood as a punishment or criticism of Zechariah’s response.
We are meant to understand that Mary is being praised and favorably treated in comparison to Zechariah, but this is due to something not captured, or fully captured, in the text, such as a inward disposition on Zechariah’s part in comparison to Mary’s inward disposition.
We are meant to understand a contrast between the two but there is something about the two situations that makes Mary’s reaction more reasonable than Zechariah’s. For example, it might be argued that what is being proposed in Mary’s case requires a far greater leap of faith (a birth with no man involved) in comparison to what is being proposed in Zechariah’s (a birth past the normal age). Thus it might be more reasonable for Mary to ask questions up front than it was for Zechariah, and when these questions were answered, she was ready to believe.
We are meant to understand a contrast between the two and the text does hint at the basis for the contrast. For example, Zecharaiah asks a different question that Mary does. Zechariah asks the angel for a sign to prove it to him ("How will I know this?"), whereas Mary only asks for an explanation ("How will this be?"). Taken on their faces, Mary’s question is more open to the miraculous than Zechariah’s is. She is more ready to believe, and thus she is praised for this. One might even assert (consistently with the text though not required by it) that she had already believe what the angel said when she asked her question. She was just wanting clarification of the means by which it would happen rather than demanding proof that it would.

Hope this helps!

Zachariah & Mary: Double Standard?

A reader writes:

I know there is a different explanation, but when reading the biblical account of Zachary’s not understanding the angels message about John the Baptist, and Mary’s not understanding about when the angel told her about Jesus, they seem the same. Yet, Zacahry was punished while Mary was praised. I’m curious about how to explain this to non-Catholic friends who look for "holes" in Catholic teaching, and sometimes the bible itself.

I appreciate the difficulty you are perceiving, as it’s something I’ve had to ponder myself. And it’s not just a problem for Catholics. I wondered about this as a Protestant.

Here’s what we’re told about the case of Zechariah:

And Zechari’ah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time" [Luke 1:18-20].

And here’s what we’re told about Mary:

And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible."
And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her [Luke 1:34-38].

And we’re told:

[Elizabeth:] "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" [Luke 1:45].

It seems to me that there are several possible explanations:

We are not meant to understand the praise of Mary as a contrast to Zechariah. It’s simply praise made without reference to his situation. The difference of the signs they are given is just part of the mystery of God’s providence and is not meant to be understood as a punishment or criticism of Zechariah’s response.
We are meant to understand that Mary is being praised and favorably treated in comparison to Zechariah, but this is due to something not captured, or fully captured, in the text, such as a inward disposition on Zechariah’s part in comparison to Mary’s inward disposition.
We are meant to understand a contrast between the two but there is something about the two situations that makes Mary’s reaction more reasonable than Zechariah’s. For example, it might be argued that what is being proposed in Mary’s case requires a far greater leap of faith (a birth with no man involved) in comparison to what is being proposed in Zechariah’s (a birth past the normal age). Thus it might be more reasonable for Mary to ask questions up front than it was for Zechariah, and when these questions were answered, she was ready to believe.
We are meant to understand a contrast between the two and the text does hint at the basis for the contrast. For example, Zecharaiah asks a different question that Mary does. Zechariah asks the angel for a sign to prove it to him ("How will I know this?"), whereas Mary only asks for an explanation ("How will this be?"). Taken on their faces, Mary’s question is more open to the miraculous than Zechariah’s is. She is more ready to believe, and thus she is praised for this. One might even assert (consistently with the text though not required by it) that she had already believe what the angel said when she asked her question. She was just wanting clarification of the means by which it would happen rather than demanding proof that it would.

Hope this helps!

This Week's Second Show (Feb. 17, 2005)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Can the gospel readings during Lent be done in dialogue form?
Does God love the devil?
Do diocesan priests have to take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience?
Should Gentiles pay more attention to the writings of Paul than other authors?
Did anybody get into heaven prior to the Resurrection of Christ?
Religious Ed director said it’s very hard for anyone to commit mortal sin.
Daughter’s friend killed himself. Can he be saved? (Also: I make a special prayer request for caller’s husband, who is quite sick.)
A Protestant caller asks why the pope doesn’t resign (and is quite pleased with the answer).
If medicine can be used to affect the course of nature, why can’t contraception? Why can’t people in the third world use contraception to control overpopulation?
What does it mean to unite our sufferings with those of Christ?

This Week’s Second Show (Feb. 17, 2005)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Can the gospel readings during Lent be done in dialogue form?
Does God love the devil?
Do diocesan priests have to take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience?
Should Gentiles pay more attention to the writings of Paul than other authors?
Did anybody get into heaven prior to the Resurrection of Christ?
Religious Ed director said it’s very hard for anyone to commit mortal sin.
Daughter’s friend killed himself. Can he be saved? (Also: I make a special prayer request for caller’s husband, who is quite sick.)
A Protestant caller asks why the pope doesn’t resign (and is quite pleased with the answer).
If medicine can be used to affect the course of nature, why can’t contraception? Why can’t people in the third world use contraception to control overpopulation?
What does it mean to unite our sufferings with those of Christ?

More NYT Nuggets

A couple three more nuggets from the

NYT PIECE ON THE MAYBE-KINDA-SORTA DEMOCRAT ABORTION RETHINK.

Here’s the first:

Emily’s List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national Democratic chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group’s Web site: "We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."

No. This issue is not a scapegoat. The Democratic Party is losing more votes than it’s gaining by its bloodthirty support of babykilling, and with thin margins of victory, that is what keeps them out of office.

It’s The Abortion, Stupid.

"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone [of Republicans for Choice] said. "The pro-choice donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."

Durhay!

Of course they have more disposable cash to give to political parties! They aren’t spending that cash on raising children! (They’ve also been brainpoisoned by the college and grad school degrees of liberal academia that are a key to greater wealth, and they have been putting their careers–i.e., wealth–ahead of raising children.)

But y’know what: Because they’re not raising children they’re not raising new votes. You can have your choice between short-term cash and long-term votes.

I choose the latter.

But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the Democrats move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party movement."

Yes, which is part of why–though I haven’t talked about this publicly before–I think that depending on how things go . . . we may be nearing the breakup of the Democratic Party.