Month: May 2005

Fun While Dieting

Now, I am not a medical authority, so I cannot recommend any particular diet plan, but in the last few months I have been trying to lose some weight.  My sister passed on to me a tip for watching one’s calories while eating out that has caused no end of laughter whenever we’ve used it.  And it works too!

Scenario:  You’ve ordered a standard meal — and restaurants tend to portion such meals to an adult male — and find that you’ve eaten enough to satisfy you.  You could ask the waiter to box it up for you to take home, but by the time you flag him down and he brings you a box you have finished eating the meal through picking at it.  Even if you manage to hold off and take home the leftovers, they are more likely to become your midnight snack rather than tomorrow’s lunch.  What do you do?

One solution:  Ruin the food. 

Yes, that’s right.  Make the food unpalatable.  After all, if you leave it on the plate the restaurant will throw it out anyway.  The staff won’t box it up and send it to the starving kids in China or even to the local food pantry.  It goes in the trash.  So, you might as well have fun with the food before it is disposed of.

For example, after seeing Revenge of the Sith Saturday night with my sister, we went to Denny’s for dessert.  We each ordered a chocolate sundae, not realizing that the portions were going to be huge.  (We could easily have shared one if we had known beforehand the size of the portions.)  So, when I ate all I knew I should eat, I picked up the pepper shaker, unscrewed the lid, and dumped some pepper into the remains of my sundae.  My sister did likewise to hers with sugar packets and table litter.  Voila!  The sundaes were no longer appetizing and we had a ball while depriving ourselves.

It’s especially fun when the wait staff notices what you have done.  One waiter actually missed a step when eyeing another dessert to which I’d added a liberal amount of salt.  When asked to explain — which has happened once or twice — the wait staff I’ve encountered have loved the idea and have said they’d be trying it too.

One caveat:  Not everyone will be impressed by your brilliance in happily destroying your leftovers.  I’ve had friends plead with me not to do it in their presence because they are either grossed-out or want my leftovers for themselves.  As long as they are willing to lay claim to the food and thus remove the temptation from me, I am more than happy to accommodate their more delicate sensibilities.

Feel free to share your own diet tricks in the combox.

Chilly Chili

In one of his recent posts, Jimmy made reference to cold pizza in such a way as to make one speculate that he appreciates the occasional refrigerated snack. I have nursed a private affinity for chilled foods for some years, but until now have never publicly acknowledged my secret.

Hello, my name is Tim, and I like cold food.

I’m not talking about things you would normally eat cold, like yogurt or deli meat. I’m talking about those things that you would normally heat up before consuming. The merits of cold fried chicken, of course, are well documented. That’s one that would fall into the category of socially accepted cold food. One could eat this without receiving weird looks from friends or family.

I am advocating more adventurous and creative dishes: cold mashed potatoes and gravy, cold chicken and rice casserole, or (my personal favorite) the cold spaghetti sauce sandwich. The latter has to be made with meat sauce, and the more meat the better. Vegetable-only spaghetti sauce just won’t hold together. It should also be  made with some good bread; leftover garlic toast or a hoagie roll work nicely. Steer away from the pasty white sandwich bread. The same can be done with cold chili.

Cold food has several advantages over warmed-up food: It is great when you are in a hurry, it requires no sauce pan or anything like that, and it will never FRY THE ROOF OF YOUR MOUTH as a result of being heated far beyond natural limits in a microwave oven. A piece of microwaved pizza can be a real health hazard, far hotter than anything served straight from a regular oven. Molten cheese behaves like napalm at those temperatures.

Now one thing I have noticed about cold foods: This seems to be a phenomenon associated with the x/y chromosome combo. In other words, it seems to be a guy thing. Often when indulging my cold-food jones, I am met with incredulous looks from the female members of the household, and remarks like "Aren’t you going to warm that up?", or "Put that on a plate, you’ll enjoy it more.". Obviously this is a pleasure that simply remains opaque to many bystanders.

I am no longer ashamed of my love for congealed beef stroganoff. If the French can have their vichyssoise, I am entitled to my wedge of macaroni and cheese or a quivering slice of chicken and dumplings.

Mm-m-m-m-m…

Annulment For Non-Catholic?

A reader writes:

A friend of mine is catholic.  He plans to marry a woman who is divorced from a man who abused her. 

Okay. She might have grounds of an annulment if the abuse is a product of a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the former husband about the nature of the marriage commitment.

She was married in a Baptist church and they don’t have annulments in the Baptist Church.

Wouldn’t matter if they did. The Church only honors its own annulments since nobody else applies the same standards that it does to this situation.

They have asked several priests and they say nothing can be done.  That seems wrong. 

It sure does.

If she were catholic and it is a marriage that would be given an annulment, shouldn’t the Church be able to grant some kind of annulment to her since her church won’t or at least recognize it somehow so they can be validly married? 

It certainly can do this. The mere fact that the lady in question is not a Catholic does not prevent her from having a Catholic marriage tribunal examine the marriage and determine whether or not it was valid. Catholic marriage tribunals hear the cases of divorced individuals seeking to marry Catholics all the time.

It’s hard for me to imagine that the priests they talk to were ignorant of this point, it is so common in parish life. My suspicion is that there was a misunderstanding of some kind–that the question wasn’t put to them in a manner that would elicit the desired information.

I suggest that she simply call a local parish, state that she is a non-Catholic hoping to marry a Catholic and that she needs to pursue the annulment process. They should be able to help her get the paperwork needed to begin this.

That being said, there are no guarantees that her first marriage really was null, or that it can proven to be null. As a result, she should not be making any kind of definite wedding plans (with the Catholic gentleman or anyone else) until it can be shown that she is free to marry. Christ was rather strong on this point (Mark 10:11-12).

Hope this helps, and God bless!

Liturgy Of The Hours

When most folks think about liturgy, they think about the Eucharist, but the Eucharistic liturgy is only one of several in the Church. Each of the other sacraments is performed in the context of a liturgy. But there is an additional liturgy that the Church celebrates: the liturgy of the hours.

Recently I received some questions about the liturgy of the hours and asked <Rule 15b>Fr. Stephanos of the Order of St. Benedict</Rule15b> if he would be so kind as to answer them for the folks on the blog. I figured it could be a real service for the reader since so few of us layfolks know much about the liturgy of the hours.

I hope y’all will join me in thanking Fr. Stephanos for taking the time to help us to better understand this liturgy of the Church.

Here goes!

===========================

SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE CANONICAL HOURS OF THE LITURGY

 

++++

 

First of all, a striking affirmation!

 

The “canonical hours of the liturgy” make up a  “prayer/worship system” that, beyond the Mass, constitutes the Church’s OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC prayer life.  In fact, the Church regards the “hours” as an extension of the “Liturgy of the Word” that makes up the first “half” of the Mass.  Because of this the Church obligates priests and members of religious orders to offer up daily the canonical hours.

 

So, in union with the Pope, the Bishops and the priests, the order of obligation and devotion is:  (1) the Mass, (2) the Liturgy of the Hours, (3) all other forms of personal, private devotions, prayers, reading, etc.

 

Many laypersons take up the canonical hours privately.  It unites them to the Church’s formal, public mission of both worship offered to God and intercession offered for the world.

 

++++

 

THE QUESTIONS

 

How closely do modern-day monasteries follow the classical forms of worship based on the canonical hours (Matins, Lauds, Prime, Compline, Vespers, etc.)?

 

And more specifically — it’s been my impression (as a layperson whose knowledge of this material has been gained largely from reading fiction set in medieval times) that the services of the canonical hours are primarily prayer services with closely prescribed orders of worship, such that most of what happens is scripted reading/response.

 

Therefore, two questions: in general, how much discretion would a monastery’s religious leader have over the Scripture readings used in a given service (i.e. do monasteries typically adhere to liturgical calendars prescribed by central authority)? And in which of the daily services – if any — would the presiding priest typically give an original or personally drafted homily or sermon?"

 

++++

 

Now, some answers follow.

 

++++

 

First of all, a little explanation of the “hours.”

 

Although the history of the liturgical hours of worship is older than St. Benedict of Nursia (who died in A.D. 547), most of that history since he died has been dominated or at least influenced by his arrangements for monks.

 

St. Benedict arranged to have his monks gather in church to pray (by singing or reciting) certain Psalms at certain hours of the day.  His arrangement provided for all 150 Psalms to be recited within the course of one week.  Together with the Psalms, he provided for other “song-type” passages of Scripture to also be prayed.  Sections of the singing or recitation would be interrupted by shorter or longer readings by a lector.  There would also be responsories, hymns, intercessions.

 

Certain Psalms, because of what they say, fit certain times of day better than others, so they are deliberately scheduled for those times of day.  Other Psalms are just distributed for the sake of distribution.

 

++++

 

Here is the schedule of the classical hours together with some of the various names for them throughout history).

 

2 or 3 A.M., MATINS (also called Vigils or Office of Readings).  This is the longest liturgical “hour” of the day.

 

A shorter or longer break.

 

Around sunrise, LAUDS (Morning Prayer).  Psalms 148, 149 and 150 all begin in Latin with “Lauda” (Praise!).  These three psalms always concluded the Psalm section of this hour and are the source of the name “Lauds.”

 

Shortly after Lauds:  PRIME (first hour after sunrise).

 

Midmorning:  TERCE (from the Latin for “third”, since it is roughly three hours after sunrise).

 

Midday:  SEXT (six hours after sunrise; the Latin for “sixth hour” is “hora sexta”).  This is followed by a scheduled rest or nap.  You would do the same if you had arisen at 2 or 3 A.M.  The Spanish word “siesta” comes from the Latin “sexta.”

 

Midafternoon:  NONE–rhymes with “bone”.  Comes from “hora nona”—“ninth hour” in Latin.  The Latins reckoned the day in rough three-hour shifts; they called the period from midday to midafternoon “nona”—from which English gets “noon.”

 

Sundown:  VESPERS (Evening Prayer).  “Vespers” is from the Latin for “evening.”

 

Bedtime prayers:  COMPLINE (Night Prayer).  The Latin is “completorium” for this service that completes the hours.

 

++++

 

The longest service among those hours is Matins (Vigils or Office of Readings).  In St. Benedict’s arrangement it is basically:  six Psalms, a long reading from Scripture, a responsory, six more Psalms, another long reading from Scripture, a responsory, a few Scriptural canticles, a reading from the Fathers of the Church, a responsory, a reading of the Gospel, two hymns.

 

Lauds (Morning Prayer):  Several Psalms and canticles, a short reading from Scripture, a responsory, a hymn, the Benedictus canticle, intercessions, Our Father.

 

Vespers (Evening Prayer) has the same structure as Lauds, except it has the Magnificat instead of the Benedictus.

 

The other hours (prime, terce, sext, none, compline) are all basically three psalms each, with a few other elements.  These hours are usually called “The Little Hours.”

 

++++

 

The monastery’s work periods, the meals, the times for solitary prayer and reading are woven in and out of the basic framework of the liturgical hours.

 

++++

 

There are not enough Psalms to fill out the one-week structure that St. Benedict arranged.  So, he provided that for Wednesday through Saturday, at the hours of prime, terce, sext and none, the monks would repeat at those hours the same Psalms they had used at those hours on Tuesday.

 

Since the hour of prime really just sort of got tacked on at the end of Lauds, the Vatican (after Vatican II) directed the entire Church to set aside the obligation to pray prime.

 

Monasteries are free to still arrange to pray all 150 Psalms over the course of one week.

 

The Vatican’s official publication of the “Liturgy of the Hours” is a four-volume set with the Psalms basically spread out over the course of four weeks.  Since it is spread out over four weeks instead of one, the individual hours (particularly Matins and Lauds) are not as long as St. Benedict had them.  Diocesan priests, members of religious orders, all monasteries, deacons, etc. may all legitimately make use of this publication.  Religious orders, including those that usually live in monasteries, have some legitimate permission to restructure somewhat their own procedures of the Liturgy of the Hours.

 

++++

 

Monasteries adapt  the universal liturgical calendar to legitimately approved usages proper to the monastery.  For instance, the universal calendar has July 11 as the memorial of St. Benedict.  However, Benedictine monks also observe March 21 (as a feast or even a solemnity that supercedes Sunday), since it is the day St. Benedict died.

 

Monasteries may use the readings the Vatican published for the calendar of the hours, or they may select other Scripture readings.  Some religious orders, with legitimate permission, have assembled their own selection of readings into an outright Lectionary.

 

As for homilies preached during the canonical hours … this may be done … but it practically never is.

 

The correct places for a homily:  after the Gospel during Matins (Vigils); after the short reading at Lauds or Vespers.

 

++++

 

It is legitimate to incorporate the hours into the Mass.  This is regularly done in many monasteries and even at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

 

For instance, say a monastery is going to incorporate Lauds into the morning Mass.  The priest vests as for Mass.  The entrance song is sung.  Lauds begins—but just the psalms.  Then, the priest offers the Opening Prayer of the Mass, and then the Mass proceeds as normal from there.  At communion, instead of the communion song, the Benedictus for Lauds is sung.  (The same structure for Vespers with evening Mass, with the Magnificat for Vespers sung at communion.)

 

One occasion when Vespers is always incorporated into the Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome:  the annual Papal Mass for the Opening of the Academic Year.

 

++++

 

Final comments about the personal advantage of using the “Liturgy of the Hours.”

 

It unites you to the official, round-the-world prayer and worship of the pope, all bishops, priests, deacons and religious orders.

 

The themes expressed in the Psalms and throughout the Liturgy of the Hours don’t necessarily line up with your own concerns and moods and moments.  So, if you let it do so, the Liturgy constantly calls you to a bigger picture than your lonely only.  It is to be offered up as a sacrifice of praise and a sacrifice of intercession.

 

It can ground you in the two major movements of EVERYTHING:  (1) the worship of God, (2) the world’s salvation (in all matters big and small).  You end up praying God’s Word about himself, and praying God’s Word for the world and yourself.

 

“GLORY TO GOD in the highest … and on earth PEACE TO MEN on whom his goodwill rests!”  (That does cover EVERYTHING, folks.)

 

++++

 

Father Stephanos of the Order of Saint Benedict

All About Books

I haven’t yet been tagged in the book meme going around St. Blog’s Parish, but the questions about books interested me, an inveterate reader, so I figured I’d leap into the fray untagged.

  • Total books owned:  Likely in the thousands.  Every few years, I tend to collect enough to open a used bookstore in my house.  I purge them by donating to libraries or used bookstores, and then the vicious cycle starts again.  My name is Michelle and I’m a bookaholic.
  • Last book purchased: We Have a Pope!, an upcoming biography of Pope Benedict XVI by Matthew Bunson.  I bought it through Catholic Answers and am eagerly anticipating receiving a copy when the shipment arrives.  <Commercial>If you want to purchase a copy, too, GO HERE.</commercial>
  • Last book read:  Benedict XVI by John L. Allen Jr.  Although some of Allen’s later books, such as Conclave and All the Pope’s Men, are very good, I understand now why Allen himself thinks this book (originally written when the Pope was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) is not one of his best.  It is not so much a biography of the Holy Father but uses him as a pretext to discuss Allen’s own liberal views.  Allen said recently that he wished he had been able to write new material to preface the U.S. edition of the book, but did not have the opportunity.  Apparently, though, the U.K. publisher did allow for a new preface.
  • Five books that mean a lot to me:  The Bible (natch), God Help Me! These People Are Driving Me Nuts by Gregory K. Popcak (very helpful), Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating (first Catholic book I read), Morning Glory by LaVyrle Spencer (favorite romance novel), Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank (favorite book growing up).
  • Tagging:  Since I wasn’t tagged myself, I won’t tag another blogger; but feel free to answer one or more of the questions in the comments box.  Consider yourself tagged, if you like. 🙂

(Nod to Selkie for inspiration to do the St. Blog’s Book Meme.)

What To Do About Frozen Embryos

A reader writes:

The last number I read put the count of unused frozen embryos in the US at 400,000. 

I couldn’t tell you if that number is correct or not, but it’s certainly huge–whatever the correct number is.

I find that hideously disgusting and wonder if we have ever been so barbaric as we are now, allowing life to become a frozen commodity. 

I don’t know who you mean by "we," but the human race as a whole has been equally or more barbaric than we are now–we simply haven’t had the tech to do this particular barbaric thing before.

If by some miracle our sick society decided to change it’s ways and respect life, what would be the right thing to do with all these embryos?  Does the Church has a position on this?

No. The Magisterium seems to be sitting back and letting moral theologians kick this question around for a while. It’ll probably weigh in on it eventually–perhaps during the pontificate of B16.

I have heard news stories about women volunteering themselves to take these babies to term so that they are not just destroyed.  I can’t see anything wrong with this and actually find it to be a very noble gesture. 

Me, too.

Would it be wrong to just let them die? 

Good question.

Should volunteers be requested to take the babies to term?

Another good question.

What if a couple has 14 embryos in a freezer and suddenly realizes what they did was wrong?  To make it right, should they then try to bring all the babies to term.

Okay, we’re getting good question overload here.

These are just a few questions that came to mind as I was reading various stories.  If you have any insight, could you please blog it?

I’ll tell you what I can. Here is a plausible order of solutions to the problem:

  1. The couple that has created the embryos does its best to implant and bring to term these embryos. This means implanting them in a way that will maximize the chance of their surviving, so not all at once if they have 14 in cryonic suspension. Of course, doing this is expensive, and the couple may hit a limit to the number they can do before the children’s "shelf-life" is gone and they die on their own. Thus . . .
  2. For those children that can’t be raised by their own parents, allowing them to implant in the wombs of volunteer save-a-baby mothers. This also won’t solve the whole problem though, so . . .
  3. Develop artificial wombs and allow the children to develop in them. This also will be unable to fully solve the problem so . . .
  4. Baptize the embryos, knowing that the rapid thawing will result in their deaths. This solution is unlikely to be applied in very many cases, though, so . . .
  5. Allow the children to die (either frozen or upon taking them out of cold storage) and entrust them to God’s mercy.

Now, if no other solution is morally legitimate, then option #5 is morally licit. The question is: Are any of the other solutions morally licit?

While it is certainly wrong for the parents to have created the children in the manner they did, once the children are created it seems quite intutitive to me that it would be morally licit for them to be implanted in their own mother’s womb and brought to term. Thus it strikes me that solution #1 is also morally licit. It seems to be the best way to repair the situation, and I suspect most moral theologians would agree with me on this point.

Solution #2 is where known disagreement comes in. Many moral theologians apparently feel that allowing a baby to incubate in the womb of another woman is Just Wrong even if it means that the alternative for the child is Death.

Personally, I don’t see that. I think that the value of human life is such that, once the life is created, the priority of saving it is such that it would allow implantation in a second womb if this were the only way to do it.

I know that surrogate motherhood, as the institution has evolved in our society, is Very Evil, but it seems to me that we’re talking about something very different here. Surrogate motherhood is conceived of as a way for infertile couples to have kids through a rent-a-womb system. That’s not what’s being proposed in this case.

What we’re talking about here is Saving A Kid’s Life, and that’s a very different thing. It’s one thing to agree to serve as a surrogate mother for a child that isn’t even in existence yet. It’s another to offer to serve as a surrogate mother in order to save the life of a child who can’t (for whatever reason) live in his own mother’s womb.

I’ve heard arguments in this regard about babies having a right to being carried in their own mothers’ wombs, but it seems to me that these are better directed to surrogate motherhood situations than to life-saving situations. It seems to me that the proposed right is one that would operate in a non-absolute fashion. For example, "Yes, the child has a right to be carried to term in his own mother’s womb–unless he already exists and the alternatives are death or temporary residence in another womb."

I understand more clearly the idea that the child has an absolute right to being conceived of his married biological parents in a normal sexual act, but it seems that the incubation stage is not that analogous to conception.

The definitive step in the child’s development–its conception and thus its creation–has already taken place. Incubation in a womb may provide it with nutrition, hydration, oxygen, shelter, and even hormonal interaction, but it does not provide anything definitive of its existence. Temporary residence in another womb thus seems to me more analogous to having a wet nurse after birth (which experience also provides nutrition, hydration, and hormonal interaction) or use of an incubator (providing shelter) or use of a respirator (providing oxygen) or use of all three (thus providing all of these benefits)–than it seems analogous to conception.

Thus–under normal conditions–one would not want to force a wet nurse, an incubator, and a respirator on a child, but if the alternative to these is death then they are morally licit.

I rather suspect many children faced with the alternative of another womb or death would also (upon reaching the age of reason) say that they would prefer the former, that it would not be a violation of their rights, and that denying them this without reason could be viewed as a violation of their right to life.

So I tend to view option #2 as morally licit.

The same goes for option #3. Given what I have just sketched out about providing nutrition, hydration, oxygen, homonal interaction, and shelter through artificial means, I don’t see why a womb has to be organic rather than artificial for it to be morally licit.

Babies are often put into incubator/respirator/artificial-nutrition-and-hydration contraptions for life-saving purposes and it’s regarded as totally morally licit. If this can happen after birth, I don’t see why it can’t happen before birth.

As meaningful as birth is as a human moment for the parents, it doesn’t
seem to be a moral imperative that children detach from the mother by
natural processes only. Indeed, to save their lives preemies are often taken from the womb by cesarean section and placed in such devices and nobody say boo about it morally.

So–at this point in my understanding–I don’t personally see why a life-saving incubator can’t be customized to serve the needs of progressively younger and younger children who can’t survive on their own yet. If it means filling it with warm fluid, fine. If it means allowing the baby to eat and respirate through the placenta rather than by his mouth and nose, fine.

All of this is with the goal of saving the lives of children who already exist, not allowing people to create new kids for purposes of putting in such wombs. Abstracting from the frozen embryo problem, why can’t we develop such
incubators for the children of women about to miscarry at 14 weeks? Why
would the kid have to be 28 weeks old before such an incubator becomes
morally licit? Where do you draw the line? And once the tech exists to save the lives of kids who will otherwise miscarry, why can’t it be used to save the lives of kids who will otherwise die in cold storage?

So it seems to me that option #3 is also morally licit given what I can tell at present.

That leaves us with option #4, which involved baptizing the kids, even knowing that they will die in the process.

In this case the death is not either the goal or a mean toward a goal.
Thus the law of double-effect applies if there is a proportionate
reason. One could certainly argue that giving the children the certainty of eternal life is
proportionate to the shortening of lifespan that would otherwise occur, especially since the alternative would be letting them thaw without baptism and die or simply go "stale" and die in cold storage.

So: There are no firm answers on any of these things, there’s rather a lot of disagreement on all of the above, and we’ll have to wait for the Magisterium to weigh in on these questions, but I hope the above discussion provides some food for thought.

Star Wars III-B: Allure of the Fat Side

Did you know that the Dark Side is not the only aspect of the Force that parents should fear? The new movie Revenge of the Sith is luring kids to the Fat Side. Or so say Wannabe-Nanny Groups that pose as Advocates for The People:

"Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith promotes unhealthy eating, according to a review conducted by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC). Sixteen separate food promotions feature twenty-five different products, most of which are devoid of nutrients, filled with empty calories and targeted directly to young children.

"’The quantity of nutritionally deficient Star War’s food being marketed to children is staggering,’ said nutritionist Jane Levine of Kids Can Make a Difference. ‘In the midst of an epidemic of childhood obesity, once again junk food marketers have shown that they have no restraint when it comes to targeting kids. The Star Wars promotions demonstrate why we need restrictions on food marketing to children.’"

GET THE STORY.

Spare me. I didn’t take along a child when my sister and I saw Revenge of the Sith this past weekend (indeed, my sister, who is a mommy, was horrified to see a stroller in the theater in which we watched the film), but I would have had no trouble explaining to a child that he couldn’t have whatever candy-cum-snack he thought he must have based on having seen the movie. And what, exactly, these nanny groups have in mind as their concern puzzles me. They appear to be referring to the food products that have advertising from the movie on them.  Sheesh.  Just refuse to buy, for pity’s sake!  Parents are parents because they are supposed to be able to say "no" to their children when their children would otherwise make unacceptable choices.

34 . . . Whew!

As folks guessed, I’ve been counting up the number of days Benedict XVI has been pope until they pass 33, the number that John Paul I served.

The reason is that I’ve been concerned about how traumatic it would be for the Church if Benedict XVI had an ultra-short reign.

After the cardinals elected such a wonderful pope, I really, really hope that he gets to shepherd the Church for a long time, though since he is 78, one must be realistic about how long "a long time" is for a person of his maturity.

The new pope himself, apparently, made reference in the conclave to the fact that his reign would be short, and I read in his interview book The Salt of the Earth where he referred to his health having been poor years ago when he first came to work at the Vatican (if I recall correctly).

Then when Benedict skipped the beatification ceremony of a couple of folks, it made me extra nervous, though he didn’t seem to be sick. It may simply be that he wants to devote his time to pressing things (like his first encyclical, for example) without delaying things like beatifications. (I presume he’ll still personally celebrate canonizations, though not necessarily.)

While Pope Benedict has passed an important milestone–the 33 day mark–he still could (God forbid) die in an abnormally short amount of time, and that would also put the Church through a huge convulsion, perhaps ven making the cardinals question whether they had elected the right kind of candidate. (Hopefully they’d focus on Cardinal Ratzinger’s age rather than his orthodoxy as where they went wrong.)

But let’s hope that Benedict XVI still will have a lot of time to shepherd the Church, to consolidate the gains of his predecessor, and to make his own unique contributions.

God bless Benedict XVI!

HERE’ZA SUMMARY WITH ANALYSIS OF HIS FIRST MONTH IN OFFICE.

LEFTIST TO LEFT: I'm Leaving You

SanFran Chronicle columnist Keith Thompson writes (EXCERPTS):

I walk away from a long-term

intimate relationship. I’m separating not from a person but a cause: the

political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character

and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I’m leaving the left  —  more precisely, the American cultural left and

what it has become during our time together.

My estrangement hasn’t happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I

watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see.

Now it’s all too obvious.

Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept

at not taking the measure of the left’s mounting incoherence. To face it

directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first

to myself and then to others.

GET THE STORY.