The other day we noted the anniversary of the mysterious explosion that was the Tunguska Event of 1908.
Tonight, July 2 is the anniversary of another mysterious crash or explosion that was heard by witnesses and led, the next day, to events that are still widely discussed.
Story tomorrow.
No story today. Story tomorrow.
Starting captions:
I wasn’t able to do a post on Freakonomics yesterday because of time and because one of the stories I’m researching on it took an unexpected (and very interesting!) turn and I haven’t been able to pin down all the details yet, so it’ll probably have to wait until at least next week.
But here’s a Freakonomics post that originally appeared over on the Freakonomics blog (CHT to the reader who e-mailed!) under the intriguing headline "Pat Robertson For President?":
Author Steven Levitt writes:
I appeared on the 700 Club this morning with Pat Robertson, in an interview that a blogger anticipated would be the "must-Tivo event of the summer." Conventional wisdom suggested this would be a bloodbath – that the Freakonomics perspective on the abortion question would enrage Robertson and a shouting match would ensue. (Indeed, my publicist was planning on turning down the 700 Club’s invitation to appear without even asking me, but decided she should at least ask.)
As so often is the case, conventional wisdom turned out to be wrong. The folks from the 700 Club could not have been kinder or more gracious, believe it or not. Pat Robertson knew the book quite well, asked all the right questions, and heaped enough praise on me to make me blush. We even talked about the abortion issue without incident. And the time and effort that the crew had taken in assembling footage and clips for a lead-in surpassed any other TV show I’ve done.
After I went on the Daily Show, I plugged Jon Stewart, suggesting he would make a great president. So what about Pat Robertson? I didn’t actually get to meet Robertson in person or interact with him off-air (like I did with Jon Stewart) since I wasn’t in studio for the 700 Club interview, but rather shot remotely in a TV studio in Chicago. So, honestly, I don’t have any special insights on Robertson (making the title of this blog post a bit misleading, sorry). I will say this, though. The large segment of our society that wants to demonize Robertson will get no fodder from my interview with him, and the large segment of folks who like him won’t find anything in the interview to change their mind, either.
We’ll post a transcript of the full interview segment when it comes available so you can see for yourself [SOURCE].
Kudos to Levitt!–And Robertson!
Like I said, pro-lifers and non-pro-lifers can discuss the abortion-crime issue in a reasonable way. Levitt sought to do so in his book, and I’m glad that Robertson did on his show!
If you’ve missed what all this is about, SEE MY PRIOR POST or
Down yonder (keep scrolling), a reader writes:
Do you really believe that you are sufficiently informed on the specifics of this matter to make such an unequivocal determination of the priests guilt?
Have you communicated with the Pastor to determine what exactly he has done? Or with the parents of the children?
I’m just wondering, because I didn’t realize that "Canon Law" provided for such judgements as you have made.
If you go back and read the original post, you’ll see that I quite carefully noted that I’m relying on a press report and that the press may have gotten it wrong. Consequently, I’m not making unequivocal determinations regarding anybody’s guilt. I’m speaking to whether the pastor’s actions were lawful if the press report is accurate.
The reader continues:
Regarding some of your points specifically.
Canon 213: The spiritual goods of the church to which they are entitled are all available to them at mass. It does not say they are entitled to spiritual goods in the form of regular religious education classes.
This interpetation of the canon is not accurate. It is patently untrue that "all" the spiritual goods referred to in the canon are available at Mass since the canon expressly refers to "the sacraments" (plural). This means all the sacraments, and you can’t get all the sacraments at Mass. Such a reductionistic reading of the canon is simply wrong.
Neither can the faithful’s right to receiving goods "from the word of God" limited to what happens in Mass. It also includes, as later canons spell out–the duty of pastors to assist with the catechetical preparation of children to receive the sacraments.
Canon 843: You conveniently ignore the "proper disposition" which would include regular mass attendance.
I in no way ignore this. I don’t mention it because this clause is not germane to the legal issue being discussed. Some have tried to make it relevant by arguing that you have to fulfill your Sunday obligation to be properly disposed to receive Communion but this fails because the mechanism by which failure to fulfill Sunday obligation results in lack of proper disposition is because it results in folks being in mortal sin.
Only that doesn’t happen in this case because any child whose parents refuse to take him to Mass has a valid excuse for missing Mass and thus is not in mortal sin. (At least not on that ground alone.)
Further, as I have pointed out elsewhere, frequent attendance at a Mass is simply not required for one to be properly disposed to receive Communion. If you have people who live up in the hills, with only one parish within driving distance, and the diocese only sends around a priest every two months to say Mass for them then they do not thereby lose the proper dispositions needed to receive Communion when it is offered at a Mass. Same goes for shut-ins who are too physicaly infirm to go to Mass. And same thing goes for those who can’t get to Mass on their own (e.g., kids) and who don’t have someone who is willing to take them (as in this case).
Canon 912: There is no evidence that anyone is being denied Holy Communion.
Please go read the news article in question. It makes it quite clear that the pastor is preventing the kids from attending the catechetical classes needed for the children to make their First Holy Communion. They are thereby being denied Communion by denying them the prerequisites for Communion.
Canon 913: The fact that they do not attend regular mass is proof that they do not have careful preparation.
No it is not. Canon 18 expressly states that laws restricting the exercise of a right must be given a strict interpretation.
Applying this to the requirements for the exercise of the right to receive Communion requires one to take a strict understanding of the preparation that is necessary: It is that catechetical preparation needed for initiation into the Eucharist, not attending Mass each week–or even attending Mass frequently.Otherwise the people living up in the hills who don’t have regular access to Mass would never be able to get any of their children initiated into the Eucharist.
Canon 18 requires one to give these canons a strict interpreatation favoring the right of the child to both the catechesis and the reception of the Eucharist.
Since you seem to lean heavily on the assumption that much of the detriment here is sacramental preparation, which I don’t believe it is all about, what would you have him do?
I would have him encourage the parents to engage in regular Mass attendance in ways that do not involve obstructing the child’s right to catechesis or the Eucharist. For example: Making personal calls on them to urge them to attend Mass more frequently and explaining how important it is, both for themselves and for their children. If there are too many such parents, he should enlist others to aid in the effort.
Should he acknowledge their right to attend the classes and ignore that their mass attendence is insufficient to qualify them for receiving the sacrament due to proper disposition, and careful preparation?
No, because that’s not what’s going on here. The children’s Mass attendance is not insufficient to qualify them from receiving the sacrament, either on grounds of proper disposition or careful preparation. He therefore does not need to ignore this fact because it is not a fact.
What is a fact is that the child has a right to both catechesis and, following that, the Eucharist, in a timely manner that cannot be obstructed because of the delinquency of his parents.
VACANCY ON THE SUPREME COURT: O’CONNOR RETIRES.
Here we go, folks! The balloon’s going up!
I’m a few days late with this, but famed American writer and historian Shelby Foote has gone to meet his Maker.
He was 88 years old.
Following an early career as a novelist, Foote turned to history, writing extensively about the Civil War, which he described as America’s equivalent to the Illiad.
He was a keystone interviewee in Ken Burns’ 11-hour documentary The Civil War, which made him nationally famous.
Foote was the best friend of fellow-novelist Walker Percy, and once the two went to visit William Faulkner. Percy was too shy to enter Faulkner’s dwelling. Foote knocked on the door, entered, and spent several hours there while Percy waited in the car.
Goats get a bad rap in the Bible, what with always being separated out from the sheep and sent off in shame. But in California, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is rejuvenating the goats’ image by turning nature’s lawnmower into wildfire fighters:
"From hilly San Francisco to more rural settings, California landowners, business and officials have hired the voracious animals to devour the grass and brush that fuels wildfires.
"Last year, more than 5,500 fires blackened over 168,000 acres in the most populous U.S. state.
"’Goats are just another tool in the toolbox for California and we try to use as many tools as possible,’ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection spokesman Michael Jarvis said in an interview last week."
The meek who inherit the land will have the goats to thank.
Yesterday, June 30, Thomas Sowell turned 75.
Normally I’d put a birthday listing in the "Current Events" category, but I decided to put this one in history because Sowell chose to celebrate his birthday by writing a column in which he reflects on the seventy-five years he’s been alive and all that’s happened in them.
They form one third of the time the United States has been around, and a lot has happened, both here and abroad.
His conclusion?
There is much to complain about today and to fear for the future of our children and our country. But despair? Not yet.
We have all come through too much for that.
NOTE: I make a conscious point of listening to my elders, and for a very simple reason: They know stuff that I don’t. I recommend the policy generally, and it’s a treat to have someone like Sowell reflect on the events of his life–so far!
Many happy returns, Dr. Sowell!
