Month: March 2005

Conscience

A reader writes:

I was told by a Catholic that he was free to disagree with Church teaching by virtue of the "Doctine of Conscience" He doesn’t believe that missing mass is a mortal sin, and for a lapsed Catholic to take communion etc.

I am not yet a Catholic, and am being confused by individuals who are active practicing Catholics, but appear to be of the cafeteria type. Am I out to lunch and uncharitable?

Nope.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

Your friend clearly has an erroneous notion of conscience. Whether he is culpable for this or not is a matter that we should not attempt to judge, but he has an erroneous notion nonetheless.

Your friend apparently knows what the Church holds regarding certain situations (i.e., that it is gravely sinful to miss Mass on Sundays without an excusing cause, that lapsed Catholics should not go to Communion without confession first) and is wilfully disregarding this. It seems from what you have said as if he has taken little trouble to investigate the firmness with which the Church holds these points or that he knows they are firm but wilfully disregards this fact. This means that he may be in a situation where he is culpable for his error on these points, though this cannot be said with certainty.

What is certain is that your friend is wrong and needs to re-think these issues with greater attention to the teaching and governing authority that Christ bestowed upon the Church:

"I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heave"–Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:18

H. P. LOVECRAFT: Artist!

Lovecraft describes some pretty weird monsters in his fiction. The most famous is Cthulhu, which he describes as looking like a cross between a man, a dragon, and an octopus.

In the story The Call of Cthulhu, Lovecraft mentions an apparent voodoo cult in Lousiana that has a small, pre-human statuette of Cthulhu that they use in their rites. When the police bust up and arrest members of the group, they get the statuette, which is then taken to a meeting of archaeologists in a vain attempt to identify it.

Lovecraft describes the statue this way:

The figure . . . was between seven and eight inches in height, and of exquisitely artistic workmanship. It represented a monster of vaguely anthropoid outline, but with an octopus-like head whose face was a mass of feelers, a scaly, rubbery-looking body, prodigious claws on hind and fore feet, and long, narrow wings behind.

This thing, which seemed instinct with a fearsome and unnatural malignancy, was of a somewhat bloated corpulence, and squatted evilly on a rectangular block or pedestal covered with undecipherable characters.

The tips of the wings touched the back edge of the block, the seat occupied the centre, whilst the long, curved claws of the doubled-up, crouching hind legs gripped the front edge and extended a quarter of the way clown toward the bottom of the pedestal. The cephalopod head was bent forward, so that the ends of the facial feelers brushed the backs of huge fore paws which clasped the croucher’s elevated knees.

The aspect of the whole was abnormally life-like, and the more subtly fearful because its source was so totally unknown. Its vast, awesome, and incalculable age was unmistakable; yet not one link did it shew with any known type of art belonging to civilisation’s youth – or indeed to any other time.

Totally separate and apart, its very material was a mystery; for the soapy, greenish-black stone with its golden or iridescent flecks and striations resembled nothing familiar to geology or mineralogy.

The characters along the base were equally baffling; and no member present, despite a representation of half the world’s expert learning in this field, could form the least notion of even their remotest linguistic kinship. They, like the subject and material, belonged to something horribly remote and distinct from mankind as we know it. something frightfully suggestive of old and unhallowed cycles of life in which our world and our conceptions have no part.

Now, since reading the story, I’ve had my own mental image of what the statuette looks like (though I must say that I have a tendency to forget that it’s supposed to be made of greenish-black stone and imagine it as being made of straight black stone instead).

I’ve wondered, though, what mental image Lovecraft had of the statue. He was no artist (despite the fact I just said he was in the title of this post), but he did once draw a picture of it in a letter to his friend F. Lee Baldwin. Here it is:

WARNING! IMPENDING VISAGE OF ELDER COSMIC MADNSS THAT MAY SHATTER YOUR SANITY! VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED! THIS IMAGE CONTAINS MATERIAL KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE INSANITY!

Continue reading “H. P. LOVECRAFT: Artist!”

Distance Doctorates?

A reader writes:

I currently have been looking online for a possible distance learning "accredited" Phd/doctorate program in theology. Can anyone point me in the right direction of a credible source?

For one here in the U.S., not really, but see below.

I have looked at a few. For example, Liberty University has a doctorate program and claims to be accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Is this a legitimate accreditation?

Yes, it is. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is one of the major regional U.S. accreditors. I also checked the CHEA database, and they are there (see below).

Finally by whom should a distance learning program be accredited by in order to have any legitimacy?

It depends on what country one is in. In most countries, accreditation is carried out directly by the government and there are few diploma mills. Here in the U.S., it doesn’t work quite that way. The major accreditors are private institutions, but anyone listed by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is a safe bet. In fact, some places (like the state of Michigan) use the CHEA database as a test of whether a degree will be honored for employment purposes and exclude schools that aren’t under the CHEA umbrella (WARNING! Evil file format [.pdf]!).

p.s. Is there a link or website where I can look up the names of universities to see if they are accredited by a credible educational institution?

Sure, you can

CHECK THE CHEA DATABASE.

Now, a few further thoughts:

  1. I can’t recommend that you go with Liberty University as they are a Southern Baptist School. A doctorate in theology from such a place will cut absolutely no mustard in Catholic circles. Doctorates in other things, like biblical languages or biblical studies, might, but theology, no.
  2. I don’t think distance education has matured to the point that many accredited institutions (particularly Catholic ones) feel comfortable offering doctoral degrees at a distance. We may get to that point some day, but we ain’t there yet. That’s why such things are so hard to find.
  3. I can mention one place that you might want to investigate that offers a distance doctorate at least somewhat along these lines: The Maryvale Institute in Birmingham (the one in England, not Alabama) offers a doctorate in Catholic Studies. This is a research degree and not a PhD in theology. They are accredited through the UK’s Open University, if I am not mistaken.
  4. The real acme degree in Catholic circles is not a PhD in theology but an STD. That’s not as horrible as it sounds (it stands for Doctor of Sacred Theology). Such degrees are awared only at schools that have Vatican approval to offer them, and I am sure that none of these schools presently offers a distance STD. It probably will be a long time before any do, though other doctorates in related fields may still cut a good bit of mustard.
  5. When looking at accreditation issues, one has to look at look not only at the school but at the program. Some schools are accredited to offer certain degrees but not others. Make sure to inquire about whether the degree you’re after is accredited and by whom.
  6. You also sometimes have to look at the government. Accreditation by some governments may not be worth much internationally.

Hope this helps!

LEARN MORE ABOUT ACCREDITATION.

Music Bleg For WYD

I recently got the following e-mail under the subject heading "could you please post this?"

Live to serve, so: <Rule 15 Suspension>Stephen Tefft</Rule 15 Suspension> writes:

Mr, Akin,

I am a Catholic singer/songwriter whose praise and worship band, Cor Sanctum (www.corsanctum.com), has been invited to perform at World Youth Day in Germany this Summer. My bandmates and I took a chance, sent a couple of our CD’s in to the organizers and were informed that we made the final cut, beating out almost 600 other bands world-wide. Now we have to, somehow, find the "sufficient funding" to be able to go.

We are not asking for donations, although they would be greatly appreciated. We are asking for prayers first and foremost. We are also asking that people visit our website (www.corsanctum.com), check out our musical offerings, and perhaps purchase a CD or two.

When one thinks about how much money one typically spends on entertainment… movies, CD’s, etc… I don’t think it too much to ask to use a small portion to help out a small Catholic praise band trying to use their talents for God’s greater glory. And get a wonderful CD of good Catholic praise and worship music to enjoy.

Could you, please, take a little time to check out our website? All our recorded music is available to listen to on-line.

Being accepted to World Youth Day is a HUGE opportunity for us. Please help us get the word out about our band…

Thank you and God bless.

Stephen M. Tefft
www.corsanctum.com

GET THE MUSIC.

Desperate Midwives

A reader writes:

In Exodus 1, God blessed some women for lying, because their lies saved the first born Hebrews. There are other examples of people lying in the Old Testament and it being a good thing.

So, can morality be relative depending on circumstances? I know sin can change from grave to venial depending on circumstances, but in that example I used, God blessed them, not just excused their lies as venial sins.

Thanks!

Let’s look at the passage:

15: Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiph’rah and the other Pu’ah,
16: "When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live."
17: But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.
18: So the king of Egypt called the midwives, and said to them, "Why have you done this, and let the male children live?"
19: The midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and are delivered before the midwife comes to them."
20: So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very strong.
21: And because the midwives feared God he gave them families.

While many folks look at this passage and conclude that God blessed the midwives for lying, this conclusion does not seem to be borne out by the text, which expressly states that the reason for the blessing was the midwives’ fear of God. This fear of (reverence for) God was manifest chiefly in the midwives’ refusal to kill the Hebrew baby boys. What they told Pharaoh in their desperation was just a secondary attempt to keep what they had done from being exposed and them from being executed.

The lie thus seems secondary to the main thing, which was their defiance of Pharaoh’s evil order so that they might honor God. It’s a "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Since they obeyed God, God blessed them, as well as excusing the lie they told.

That being said, when reading the Old Testament one must recognize that due to progressive revelation not everything, in particular not everything regarding God’s will, was as clear at the time as it later came to be. (Indeed, the Ten Commandments hadn’t even been given at the time of Exodus 1; they weren’t given until Exodus 20). The total incompatibility of lying with God’s will thus may not have been as clear to the people of the day as it is to us, and this may have played a role in God treating them as he did (i.e., not holding the lie against them).

URANUS: The Planet Whose Name Wasn't Quite Right

UranusMarch 13, 1781: Sir William Herschel discovers the planet Uranus.

It was the first planet to be discovered since prehistoric times, and thus the first not worshipped as a god by the ancients.

He wanted to call it Georgium Sidus ("The Star of George") after England’s Mad King, who was kinging at the time of the American Revolution, which had started a few years earlier.

Well, everybody recognized that Georgium Sidus wasn’t quite right as a name.

French astronomers proposed calling it Herschel, after its discoverer.

That, of course, was worse.

It thus fell to German astronomer Johann Bode to come up with the name Uranus, giving rise to countless offputting jokes.

LEARN MORE ABOUT URANUS.

URANUS: The Planet Whose Name Wasn’t Quite Right

UranusMarch 13, 1781: Sir William Herschel discovers the planet Uranus.

It was the first planet to be discovered since prehistoric times, and thus the first not worshipped as a god by the ancients.

He wanted to call it Georgium Sidus ("The Star of George") after England’s Mad King, who was kinging at the time of the American Revolution, which had started a few years earlier.

Well, everybody recognized that Georgium Sidus wasn’t quite right as a name.

French astronomers proposed calling it Herschel, after its discoverer.

That, of course, was worse.

It thus fell to German astronomer Johann Bode to come up with the name Uranus, giving rise to countless offputting jokes.

LEARN MORE ABOUT URANUS.

What To Do When You're Incensed

(First, count to ten.)

A reader writes:

When the priest walks around the church incensing, do the people in the congregation make the Sign of the Cross when he gets to their area (they way they do when he sprinkles holy water)? I am unsure whether I should bow, make the Sign of the Cross, or what.

A check of the (current and previous) GIRM reveals little on this question. Here is the most significant discussion of what actually happens when things and people are incensed:

277. The priest, having put incense into the thurible, blesses it with the sign of the Cross, without saying anything.

Before and after an incensation, a profound bow is made to the person or object that is incensed, except for the incensation of the altar and the offerings for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The following are incensed with three swings of the thurible: the Most Blessed Sacrament, a relic of the Holy Cross and images of the Lord exposed for public veneration, the offerings for the sacrifice of the Mass, the altar cross, the Book of the Gospels, the Paschal Candle, the priest, and the people.

The following are incensed with two swings of the thurible: relics and images of the Saints exposed for public veneration. This should be done, however, only at the beginning of the celebration, after the incensation of the altar.

The altar is incensed with single swings of the thurible in this way:

a. If the altar is freestanding with respect to the wall, the priest incenses walking around it;

b. If the altar is not freestanding, the priest incenses it while walking first to the righthand side, then to the left.

The cross, if situated on or near the altar, is incensed by the priest before he incenses the altar; otherwise, he incenses it when he passes in front of it.

The priest incenses the offerings with three swings of the thurible or by making the sign of the cross over the offerings with the thurible, then going on to incense the cross and the altar.

That’s it. It just says that the priest incenses the people with three swings of the censer. It doesn’t say for the people to do anything.

Neither does a check of the rubrics (so far as I could see) direct the people to do anything when they’re incensed. Checks of the BCL Newsletter and the Documents on the Liturgy (a standard collection) also turned up bupkis.

Thus, unless someone can show a binding document that says otherwise, it seems to me that the default option is for the people to do nothing.

That is definitely not the custom in some rites, however. In some Eastern rite services I’ve been to, it’s clearly the custom for folks to cross themselves.

Also, since the above text directs the incensor to make a profound bow (a bow of the body) before he incenses, it seems natural for folks to want to bow back to him. That’s a human politeness impulse, though. One might argue that in the act of incensing the people the incensor is being directed to show reverence to them on account of their sacredness to God (being made in the image of God). Since they are the recipient of this reverence and are not directed to reciprocate, one could argue that they ought not reciprocate at this point.

It seems to me that, although the default option seems to be to do nothing, Rome generally allows the laity a considerable amount of leeway in terms of their own gesture and posture (after all, we laity are peasants just in from slopping the pigs in the grand scheme of things; you can’t expect too much from us) and so (unless a binding document says otherwise) I don’t think Rome would mind if the faithful wanted to express their own piety by crossing themselves or bowing when they’re incensed.

It’s certainly better than forming a mob with pitchforks and torches.