Month: November 2005

Alito & Abortion

Like many folks, I’ve been disturbed by some of the things I’ve been hearing about SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito, including previous abortion decisions he’s been involved in.

I recognize, tough, that these opinions may not tell us very much about how he would rule on abortion if placed on the Supreme Court. Lower court judges have to follow Supreme Court precedent, and that means that what they write often doesn’t tell you what they would do if they were elevated to the highest court.

For example, a circuit court judge could not declare abortion unconstitutional or even overturn The Evil Decision. He’s bound by the authority of the Supreme Court. This means that if you hear about him voting to uphold abortion law in a particular case, it may be because he knows that ruling otherwise would clash with what the Supreme Court has established as legal doctrine.

Once he has the change to make that doctrine himself, all bets are off, which is why looking at his overall judicial philosophy is so important.

The same thing plays the other way, though.

Pro-abort forces are up in arms about the fact that Alito once voted to uphold a Pennsylvania statue that had a (watery weak) requirement of spousal notification for a married woman to get an abortion. They’ll use this to try to paint him as a pro-life zealot.

But that doesn’t follow either.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER EXPLAINS WHY.

Christ The Lord: Out Of Egypt

Ricebook

Over the weekend, I read Anne Rice‘s new book Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. Not being much of a fan of goth-horror, I hadn’t read a novel of hers since having read some of The Witching Hour many moons ago. Since reports of her reversion to Catholicism started filling the press, I’ve been eager to read this new book.

The book is not an easy read. Rice tries to write from the point of view of a seven-year-old who just happens to be God Almighty, so between the seven-year-old’s voice and trying to juggle the different modes of Christ’s knowledge, the book is not a spine-tingling page-turner. I give Rice high points for working hard to be orthodox, but I think she would have had an easier time accomplishing her task if she had not attempted to tell the story in the first-person point of view of Christ himself. Perhaps it would have been simpler to have written from the point of view of James, our Lord’s "brother" and depicted here as a thirteen-year-old, either in the first- or third-person.

Rice draws liberally on apocryphal stories told of Christ’s childhood struggles with his divinity. Mentioned are the apocryphal gospels tales of Christ bringing to life clay birds and resurrecting a child he had accidentally killed through his childish inability to control his divine power. While the incidents in the apocrypha are apocryphal, I appreciated Rice’s attempt to show Christ as fully God and fully human. Fully God in that he had divine power; fully human in that he was a child who may, in his childhood, have had to learn how to control it.

Whatever you make of the theological implications and whether Rice was completely theologically-correct, she asks interesting "What if?" questions while still trying to remain faithful to orthodoxy. I would much rather read an honest fictional imagining of our Lord that leaves open the possibility of an orthodox Christian understanding of him than a clearly anti-Christian screed like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code.

Rice does make some interesting small choices within her story. She uses the older tradition of Joseph being an older (but not elderly) widower who is James’ father by his first marriage, but incorporates the later tradition of extended relations among the Lord’s "brothers" by making the other "brothers" and "sisters" Jesus’ cousins. As a personal preference, not a matter of doctrine, I prefer the later idea of a virginal Joseph because it makes the Holy Family an earthly, human image of the divine reality of the Trinity, but Rice’s picture is just as possible and within legitimate Catholic opinion.

One of the smaller choices I disliked was the idea that Jesus was taught to call Joseph by his name, rather than to call him "Father." Rice presumably chooses this for theological reasons and for dramatic purpose, and it is within the realm of acceptable opinion. Still, I prefer to believe that Jesus called Joseph Abba. It seems to me to fit better within the Catholic understanding of the sacramental understanding of creation. Human beings, because they are made in the image and likeness of God, can be physical, tangible images of divine reality.

All told, I’m glad I read this book. It’s not perfect by any means, either theologically or as fiction, but it is a solid piece of work that goes far in furthering Rice’s goal to take on the challenge of writing a novel about the Jesus of the Gospels instead of a Jesus of popular agenda. I hope that this book is the start in a series about Christ’s life. I would like to see how Rice’s development of Christ’s story matures.

Backtalk

Before I became a blogger, I used to be annoyed by weblogs that did not offer comment capability. By golly, I believed it the positive duty of blogmasters to offer me space on their sites to comment on their commentary. (Not really, but I’m working up to a rant here, so some hyperbole here and there is part of the game.)

Then I became a blogger. And while I love the great comments I often receive, even the ones that disagree with my brilliant insights (read, hyperbole again), the nasty ones are the bane of my otherwise happy existence as a co-blogger here at JimmyAkin.org.

Take today. I come back on a Monday, after a four-day weekend due to illness (much better now, thanks), and am going through my email. Typepad sends notice of when my posts receive new comments. I always know something’s up when I receive comments on old posts. Many are very kind, just like the original comments, but it is the old posts that often draw the weirdos. They figure they can spray graffiti on the site and get away with it if they target the old posts. Today I spent twenty minutes fighting with Typepad technology to erase several nasty — and I do mean nasty — comments from an old post from August and then to close commenting on the post.

After that, I gained a new appreciation for bloggers who refuse to go to the trouble and simply kill the comboxes.

Partial Repentance From History’s Greatest Monster?

As we all know, Jimmy Carter is history’s greatest monster.

Back when he was running for president in 1976, just after The Evil Decision was handed down and before abortion culture was deeply rooted in America, he said:

"I think abortion is wrong and that the government ought never do
anything to encourage abortion," he said during that campaign. "But I
do not favor a constitutional amendment which would prohibit all
abortions, nor one that would give states [a] local option to ban
abortions."

His support of legalized babykilling at that moment in history was part of what allowed abortion to become so widespread in American society. Had he acted differently and supported a constitutional amendment to reverse The Evil Decision it might have been possible to shorten the Abortion Holocaust and save millions of lives.

But he didn’t, and he’ll have to explain why to his Creator.

Fortunately, there are signs that he may be improving on this topic. Recently he made some startling statements regarding abortion:

Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday [November 3rd] condemned all abortions and
chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who
oppose abortion.

    "I never have felt that any abortion should be committed — I
think each abortion is the result of a series of errors," he told
reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-CarltonHotel, while across town
Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr.
Carter’s abhorrence of abortion.

    "These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I
basically agree," the Georgia Democrat said. "I’ve never been
convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus
Christ would approve abortion."

    Mr. Carter said his party’s congressional leadership only
hurts Democrats by making a rigid pro-abortion rights stand the
criterion for assessing judicial nominees.

    "I have always thought it was not in the mainstream of the
American public to be extremely liberal on many issues," Mr. Carter
said. "I think our party’s leaders — some of them — are
overemphasizing the abortion issue."

Now, Carter still isn’t where he needs to be on this issue (i.e., calling for that constitutional amendment he refused to call for back in ’76), but his words are still welcome as a wake-up to those who treat abortion as a sacrament.

GET THE STORY.

Propositions 26-30

HERE ARE THE NEXT FIVE PROPOSITIONS FROM THE SYNOD ON THE EUCHARIST.

Proposition 26 encourages inculturation of the liturgy but basically says nothing new since it just reiterates the responsibility of the bishops’ conferences to work the established process for obtaining permission from Rome for an adaptation they want to make in the liturgy for their territory.

Proposition 27 deals with the role of sacred art. While it doesn’t say much, it does offer a pointer in the direction of more historical art and architecture, saying: "a profound knowledge of the forms that sacred art has been able to
produce through the centuries, can help those who are called to
collaborate with the architects and artists to design appropriately, at
the service of Eucharistic life and of the present communities, both
the areas of celebration as well as the iconography."

It also stresses that the liturgical needs of the celebration according to the rite approved by the Church take priority over what amounts to new-fangled artistic impulses that might conflict with this.

Proposition 28 reiterates what the current GIRM says about the placement of the Tabernacle but does not call for always having a Tabernacle in the sanctuary–a possibility that was raised in the working document for the Synod.

Proposition 29 says that when Masses are broadcast by TV, radio, or the Internet that they must be celebrated in a dignified and proper manner, in keeping with liturgical law. It also says that this normally does not satisfy for the Sunday obligation. (This is a bit of legal imprecision on the bishops’ part: Televised Masses NEVER satisfy for the Sunday obligation. Those who cannot go for reasons of age or health or any other reason may profit from watching broadcast Masses on Sunday, but the law does not require them to do so. For people in those situations the Sunday obligation is simply not binding the way the law is presently written.)

Proposition 30 recommends greater emphasis on the observance of Sunday as the Lord’s Day, including "friendly get-togethers; formation of children, young people and adults
in the faith; pilgrimages; works of charity; and different moments of
prayer." It also notes that, although you can fulfill your Mass obligation on Saturday evening, this doesn’t let you treat Sunday like any other day.

Greetings From Mexico!

CruiseAs you read this, I should be in or on my way to Mexico for Catholic Answers’ annual apologetics cruise.

Contrary to a popular impression, this is NOT a vacation for me or the other Catholic Answers folks who are going.

While enjoyable, these cruises are HARD WORK for us, frequently with us being up until after midnight and then awake and on the go by 7 a.m.

We really knock ourselves out trying to be available for the attendees–in talks, in personal discussions and meetings, etc.

After a week of having to be "on" constantly during my waking hours, I’m ready for a break.

That being said, I really enjoy going, and it’s always great to meet and interact with supporters of the ministry–particularly those we get to know especially well because they come back year after year.

Now: What does this mean for the blog?

Well, it means I won’t be able to do my blog posts the night before, so I may not be able to blog responses to e-mail until I get back.

I may be able to slip in a few live blogs depending on how well my electronics synch up from Mexico.

I also have pre-written at least some posts for every day this week (which was why blogging last week was a tad lighter than usual).

And, as always, I invite my co-bloggers to let fly with anything they’ve been wanting to say. Here’s a BIG thanks to them in advance!

So don’t fear: The cruise doesn’t mean the blog will go on hiatus for a week!

If any readers are planning to be on the cruise, I look forward to meeting you (as I may be doing even at this moment). If other readers would like to come next year, I look forward to meeting you then! It’ll be great!

Lifeboat drill in longbeach This

Lifeboat drill in longbeach

This message was sent using PIX-FLIX Messaging service from Verizon Wireless! To learn how you can snap pictures with your wireless phone visit
www.verizonwireless.com/getitnow/getpix..

To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime 6.5 or higher is required. Visit www.apple.com/quicktime/download to download the free player or upgrade your existing QuickTime Player. Note: During the download
process when asked to choose an installation type (Minimum, Recommended or Custom), select Minimum for faster download.

Where The Abortions Are

Earlier I wanted to see where abortions are legal and illegal in the world, so I Googled up the following map:

Worldabortionmap

What do these colors mean?

Key:
Green Abortion never legal, or legal only when necessary to save the life of the mother or protect her physical health
Yellow Abortion legal in "hard cases", such as rape, incest, and/or deformed child.
Red    Abortion legal for social reasons (e.g. mother says she can’t afford a child), or to protect the mother’s "mental health" (definitions and requirements vary).
Purple Abortion legal at any time during pregnancy for any reason.

As you can see, some place in the world are really hurting, while others are suprisingly pro-life.

Much more info

AT THE SOURCE.

 

Propositions 21-25

HERE ARE THE NEXT FIVE PROPOSITIONS FROM THE SYNOD ON THE EUCHARIST.

At this point we’re out of the theological reflection stage and are into the practical stuff, so that’s more to my liking. Some of the proposals here are quite striking.

Proposition 21 states: "The Eucharistic Prayers could be enriched with acclamations, not only after the consecration but in other moments, as provided in the Eucharistic Prayers for celebrations with children and as is done in several countries." I’ll have to look up what they have in mind here.

This is a very striking proposal because we’re still in the process of getting translated the third edition of the Roman Missal (released 2000) and now they’re talking about adding elements to the Eucharistic prayer, which would necessitate a fourth edition (presumably identical to the third except for the minor adjustments they indicate).

Proposition 22 states: "The Synod hopes that the link between the epiclesis and the account of the institution will be shown with greater clarity. In this way, it would be more evident that the whole life of the faithful is, in the Holy Spirit and in the sacrifice of Christ, a spiritual offering pleasing to the Father.
"

I’m not sure (on the heels of the previous proposal) whether they’re talking again about changing the text of the Eucharistic prayers to bring out the connection between the Epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts) and the Words of Institution (regarded as the moment of consecration in Latin theology) or if they’re just suggesting that B16 dwell on this in his apostolic exhortation. Could be either.

Proposition 23 says that the sign of peace sometimes "assumes a dimension that could be problematic, when it is too prolonged
or even when it causes confusion, just before receiving Communion. Perhaps it would be useful to assess if the sign of peace should
take place at another moment of the celebration, taking into account
ancient and venerable customs."

The ancient and venerable customs they’re referring to may be the way the sign of peace is exchanged in some of the Eastern rites, where it is not a handshake or hug but a more solemn exchange of peace that we really don’t have the vocabulary to describe succinctly in English. Basically: The priest puts his hands together palm to palm and then the ministers brush the outsides of his hands with their palms so as to receive the peace from him. Then they put their palms together and let someone else receive the peace from them, passing down the aisles to allow the peace to be passed in this fashion from person to person in the pews.

I don’t know if that’s going to be the way we do it in the Latin rite in the future, but they may well move the sign of peace so that it isn’t just before Communion.

Proposition 24 also deals with a change that would necessitate an alteration in the Roman Missal: "To make more explicit the relationship between Eucharist and mission,
which belongs to the heart of this Synod, it is suggested that new
dismissal formulas be prepared (solemn blessings, prayers over the
people or others), which underline the mission in the world of the
faithful who have participated in the Eucharist."

Proposition 25 is devoted to correcting liturgical abuses. Among other things, it states: "The value, importance and necessity of the observance of the liturgical
norms must be underlined. The Eucharistic celebration must respect the
sobriety and fidelity of the rite desired by the Church, with a sense
of the sacred that helps to live the encounter with God and also with
sensible forms that favor it."

Unfortunately, there is nothing more here than a general exhortation to greater fidelity. No specific program is suggested to promote greater fidelity.

This may be because they’ve already done the major obvious things they can on this one (e.g., releasing a new GIRM, a new Missal, a new and improved set of translations that are in the works, and the document on liturgical abuses that came out recently–i.e., Redemptionis sacramentum). Shy of esatablishing a liturgical secret police, there’s not many more obvious ways to crack down on liturgical abuses at the moment. They may want to let the effect of the recent efforts continue to work their way through the Church before undertaking a major new anti-abuse initiative.