January 2006 – Page 4

A Radio Volunteer Request

You remember when we had the volunteer project going of listing the questions that appear on my Q & A shows on Catholic Answers Live?

(If you don’t, you can see examples of it HERE.)

I have been informed that the radio department at Catholic Answers is now interested in experimenting with something similar for the Q & A shows (not just mine, everybody’s).

There are details still to be worked out, but they’re interested in the basic concept. I gather that for now they’re trying to get just the new Q & As done this way to prove out the concept. What will be done with the past shows would be determined at a future date.

Currently they’re looking for volunteers to help with the initial effort by listening to the new shows, listing the questions, and e-mailing in the list.

If you would be interested in helping with the initial experiment to see if it can be something that the online archives can feature on a regular basis, please E-MAIL ME or let me know via the combox (leaving your e-mail address so we can contact you). I’ll make sure the info gets to the right people at Catholic Answers.

Yuggoth One Blasts Off!

The first space probe to visit the planet Yuggoth (a.k.a. "Pluto") has just blasted off from Cape Canaveral.

GET THE STORY.

The planet will not arrive until 2015, so we have at least nine years of safety before the Yuggoth-spawn, the dreaded "Mi-Go," are contacted by the space ship, risking an interplanetary and even interstellar incident that may threaten the sanity and survival of the human race!

Here is what NASA will find when its optimistically named "New Horizons" mission reaches Pluto:

There are mighty cities on Yuggoth – great tiers of terraced towers built of black stone like the specimen I tried to send you. That came from Yuggoth. The sun shines there no brighter than a star, but the beings need no light. They have other subtler senses, and put no windows in their great houses and temples. Light even hurts and hampers and confuses them, for it does not exist at all in the black cosmos outside time and space where they came from originally. To visit Yuggoth would drive any weak man mad – yet I am going there. The black rivers of pitch that flow under those mysterious cyclopean bridges – things built by some elder race extinct and forgotten before the beings came to Yuggoth from the ultimate voids – ought to be enough to make any man a Dante or Poe if he can keep sane long enough to tell what he has seen.

But remember – that dark world of fungoid gardens and windowless cities isn’t really terrible. It is only to us that it would seem so. Probably this world seemed just as terrible to the beings when they first explored it in the primal age. You know they were here long before the fabulous epoch of Cthulhu was over, and remember all about sunken R’lyeh when it was above the waters.

The Yuggoth spawn may already be aware of the New Horizons mission, for they may have directed their thought-currents toward Earth to induce our scientists to mount the mission in the first place, in hopes of making contact with mankind–on their own turf and on their own terms!

Indeed, it was through such a directed thought experiment that they first caused our scientists to discover their sinister planet!

Their main immediate abode is a still undiscovered and almost lightless planet at the very edge of our solar system – beyond Neptune, and the ninth in distance from the sun. It is, as we have inferred, the object mystically hinted at as "Yuggoth" in certain ancient and forbidden writings; and it will soon be the scene of a strange focussing of thought upon our world in an effort to facilitate mental rapport. I would not be surprised if astronomers become sufficiently sensitive to these thought-currents to discover Yuggoth when the Outer Ones wish them to do so.

It is a strange dark orb at the very rim of our solar system – unknown to earthly astronomers as yet. But I must have written you about this. At the proper time, you know, the beings there will direct thought-currents toward us and cause it to be discovered – or perhaps let one of their human allies give the scientists a hint.

Indeed, their thought-currents may have also induced H. P. Lovecraft to write his story "The Whisperer In Darkness," from which the above quotes are taken–for he was working on the story at the time that Pluto was discovered and he immediately realized it was the dark Yuggoth that had inspired his literary creation:

Those wild [Vermont] hills are surely the outpost of a frightful cosmic race – as I doubt all the less since reading that a new ninth planet has been glimpsed beyond Neptune, just as those influences had said it would be glimpsed. Astronomers, with a hideous appropriateness they little suspect, have named this thing "Pluto." I feel, beyond question, that it is nothing less than nighted Yuggoth – and I shiver when I try to figure out the real reason why its monstrous denizens wish it to be known in this way at this especial time. I vainly try to assure myself that these daemoniac creatures are not gradually leading up to some new policy hurtful to the earth and its normal inhabitants.

GET THE STORY.

What new policy do the Yuggoth spawn have in store for mankind?

We’ll find out in 2015!

Windows On The World

The parish church in the picture above may not be very awe-inspiring on the outside, but it does boast some interesting stained-glass windows on the inside, including one of Pope John Paul XXIII — which is either a misnamed tribute to Pope John XXIII or an imaginative portrait of a pope to be elected sometime in the fourth millennium of the Catholic Church.

Even more interesting are the windows dedicated to ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, one window being dedicated to non-Catholics and the other to non-Christians. The latter window, in addition to portraying historical figures such as Buddha and Mohammed, also pays tribute to the Egyptian mythological god Horus, son of Isis.

SEE MORE OF THE WINDOWS.

SEE THE PARISH.

This is the kind of thing that makes me ever more grateful for my own parish, built in the 1950s. The mission-style architecture, the cruciform layout of the interior, the stained-glass windows of the stations of the cross and of Catholic saints, the life-sized crucifix….. The interior is a bit stark when compared to how it might have looked a few decades ago, but it is still a lovely church. Compared to the Modern Office-Complex style of this parish that is decorated with stained-glass of questionable theological and artistic taste, my parish is heaven on earth.

(Nod to the friend who sent me the links.)

More Respect For The Blogosphere

It’s not secret that the blogosphere has been getting more respect from the MSM. Bloggers are now being used by MSM reporters as pundits to provide commentary on breaking events, and also as fodder for news stories. Blogs are also being cited as significant sources in some news stories.

What’s particularly interesting to me is watching this phenomena play out with JimmyAkin.Org. Over the last number of months I’ve been contacted by reporters who became aware of me through the blog rather than through Catholic Answers. I’ve been asked for comment and been invited on radio shows as an "interesting person" purely on the basis of the blog, by reporters and producers who aren’t even aware of Catholic Answers.

Not a lot has come of that yet, but I’ll let you know when it does. What’s interesting to me is that I’m even getting such queries. It shows how bloggers have crafted an identity for themselves and forced the MSM to respect it in a way that goes beyond being "some guy with a web page." If you’re some guy with a web page, you don’t get press inquiries in the same way, but if you’re "a blogger" then the MSM knows and respects (or fears) what you are enough that they take you more seriously. MSM reporters have learned (by the school of hard knocks) what a blogger is and what bloggers are capable of doing–and they (or some of them) have decided to start turning to bloggers for commentary and, in some cases, the facts they need to put together a story.

Something similar to that just happened in the Catholic press (not the American MSM, but significant nonetheless) with JimmyAkin.Org.

Y’all may recall the dustup that we had a bit ago with Mr. Giuseppe Gennarini of the Neocatechumenal Way. After I put up a blog post noting that he had severely misrepresented what was said in a letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze, he wrote a reply that he asked me to publish on the blog. I did (along with an accompanying critique of his reply).

Apparently all this got back to Italian journalist and vaticanista Sandro Magister, who just quoted from JimmyAkin.Org in his latest column.

Specifically: He quoted part of Gennarini’s reply in the documentation section at the bottom of his article.

HERE IT IS IN ENGLISH.

AND IN ITALIAN.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

It’s kinda cool seeing material from JimmyAkin.Org (a) being used as a source to document a news story by a well-known vaticanista and (b) seeing it done in Italian! (and [c] in a column that is read by folks in the Vatican!)

Incidentally, I’d like to chime in with Magister about one thing in particular that he says in the piece (though this is on a subject other than the Neocatechumenal Way):

During the first months of [B16’s] pontificate, the pope essentially concentrated upon the liturgical celebrations and upon the bare word: homilies, Angelus messages, catecheses, speeches, and now his encyclical. But in order for these words to be spread all over the world, they at least need to be translated and diffused in the main languages.

Well then, a speech of primary importance like the one Benedict XVI addressed to the Roman curia on December 22, two-thirds of which was dedicated to the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the relationship between the Church and the modern world, was for eight days available on the Vatican website only in its Italian version. It was then accompanied by the French, then a few days later by the Spanish, then the English, then by the German version. So, almost a month after the event, the last of the six versions into which papal documents are normally translated – the Portuguese version – is still missing (8). And the same thing has happened in the case of almost all the other texts.

And yet the Vatican is the most polyglot state in the world, brimming over with translators, and it has an overabundance of organs dedicated to social communications. They were useless, at least in this matter. Even more than that – they were harmful.

I AGREE! (And any Vatican folks who are browsing this blog in the wake of Magister’s mention, please take note!)

I don’t know if the recent slowness of translation is due to deliberate malfeasance–as Magister speculates–but I have noted that the Vatican web site has been EXTRAORDINARILY INEFFICIENT of late when it comes to translating and posting important documents.

I’ve been quite irked by the fact, and there seems to have been a marked degeneration in this respect since the end of JP2’s pontificate. I don’t know what the causes are, but this really is unacceptable, and I hope steps are taken to get things translated and posted in the timely manner that is needed to run a Church with a billion people in the Information Age.

Incidentally, I’m gratified that Magister would take note of and comment on the problem. As an Italian, it would have been easy for him to simply rejoice in having the Italian originals posted and to not have noticed that those of us in other language communities are being harmed by the tardiness of the translators and web-posters.

The fact that he’s noticed it as an Italian-speaker points to the seriousness of the problem.

Lego My Church!

… Well, not my church, the architecture of which I like just fine, but I can never resist the opportunity to make a bad pun.

The church in the picture is a Lego church, built by a computer programmer, Amy Hughes, who once wanted to be an architect and who obviously had way too much time on her hands. Here are some quickie facts about the Lego church:

"How long to build it? It was about a year and a half of planning, building and photographing.

"How many pieces of Lego to build it? More than 75,000.

"How big is it? About 7 feet by 5 1/2 feet by 30 inches (2.2 m x 1.7m x .76m).

"How many Lego people does it seat? 1372.

"How many windows? 3976. It [also] features a balcony, a narthex, stairs to the balcony, restrooms, coat rooms, several mosaics, a nave, a baptistery, an alter, a crucifix, a pulpit and an elaborate pipe organ."

SEE MORE PICTURES.

It’s a cool toy project, but be sure not to forget Ms. Hughes’ name. In the event that your diocese decides to build a new parish and her name appears as on the project as an architect, start worrying.

JIMMY ADDS: I’m thinking that the Lego church needs to inaugurate a more effective outreach program. If it doesn’t get more Lego parishioners into the pews fast then its donations won’t be able to underwrite the payments it needs to make such an obviously elaborate structure. I hope the Lego church had a lot of money in its building fund before it started such an extensive construction project.

Throwing Away The Sacred Species

A reader writes:

When I was younger I had no faith. I had graduated from RCIA a year earlier, but lost all of my faith rather quickly. After a few months of going to Mass against my will, I took the Eucharist out of church and threw it away. I did this to the best of my memory 4 times, and one time I gave it to a non -catholic friend. At the time I did it, I did not believe in the actual presence in the Eucharist. I knew as I did this, that is was considered terrible. A few months ago I found my faith and went to confession to receive absolution. The priest absolved me of those terrible sins.

I did some research afterwards and found out that what I did causes automatic excommunication that only the Holy See could lift and my first confession was invalid. I was terrified to hear this.

I was wondering that since at the time I did not know that there was the penalty of excommunication for this, did I actually receive the penalty? I did not do this to harm the Catholic Church; I have no idea what drove me to do this. Part of it was I did not believe, part of it was a catholic friends constant calling Protestants cult members. Thank you for anything you have to say…

First let me say that I’m glad that you have regained your faith and that you have turned back to God and sought reconciliation for what was done. It is wonderful that God is working in your life and has helped you find your way back to him.

I can also assure you that you are not under the penalty of excommunication and that the confession and absolution would have been valid.

Knowing that something is considered a terrible sin–and even believing yourself that it is a terrible sin–is not enough to subject one to the penalty of excommunication.

The Code of Canon Law provides that:

Can. 1324 §1. The
perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty
established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its
place if the delict was committed: . . .

9/ by a person who without negligence did not know
that a penalty was attached to a law or precept;

So, if you didn’t know that throwing away the sacred species carried the penalty of automatic excommunication then you’re not automatically excommunicated. Canon 1324 provides that for a person such as yourself (a non-canon law expert who would not be expected to know that this penalty existed and who thus was not negligent) must have any penalty that the law provides tempered (lessened).

The law provides automatic excommunication for throwing away the sacred species, so if this gets tempered (lessened) it ceases to be automatic excommunication. The alternative would be a penalty imposed on you by an ecclesiastical court. Since (I assume) no ecclesiastical court has met and convicted you and imposed any penalty on you, you are not under a penalty.

You also won’t be, because you’ve repented of the sin and sought reconciliation. Penalties like this are used for purposes of making someone wake up to an ongoing sin that they need to correct. Since you have already self-corrected, the Church would not hold a court proceeding to impose a penalty on you.

If this were an ongoing behavior of yours then you could indeed be subject to a penalty, but it’s not, and so you’re not.

You’ve turned back to God and to the Church, been reconciled and forgiven, and you should regard the matter as closed.

I hope this helps, and God bless you!

P.S. Don’t listen to your friends calling Protestants a "cult." Used in this way, the word "cult" is a silly-putty term of contempt that does not have objective meaning. I do not encourage its use. (NOTE: There are other, neutral senses in which the term "cult" can be used legitimately–e.g., "a system of worship or devotion"–but when "cult" is used to mean "bad religious group" it’s simply a brickbat hurled at people you don’t like.)

Confirmation & Divorce

A reader writes:

I am currently going through a very rough time in my marriage—which could ultimately turn to divorce (not by my choosing). Someone has asked me to serve as a confirmation sponsor which I have agreed to. I have since thought because of my current situation and/or the possibility of a divorce would make me ineligible to sponsor this person.

My question, if my marriage fails over the next few months—can I sponsor someone for this coming Easter?

I ask you to also pray for my marriage.

I will do so, and I ask my other readers to do so as well.

The answer is that divorce of itself does not pose a barrier to a person serving as a sponsor for confirmation or for baptism.

Regarding confirmation sponsors, the Code of Canon Law provides:

Can. 893 §1. To perform the function of sponsor, a person must fulfill the conditions mentioned in can. 874.

Canon 874 lists the requirements for serving as a sponsor for baptism (i.e., a godparent), so the requirements for the two positions are the same. Here is what canon 874 says:

Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the
function of sponsor a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the
parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor
or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless
the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has
granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has
already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life
of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty
legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be
baptized.

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic
ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic
sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

As you can see, there is nothing in here about divorce–especially divorce against one’s will.

The closest the canon comes to touching on the subject of divorce is in the clause that refers to "lead[ing] a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on." This doesn’t mean being perfect. It means leading the Catholic life sufficiently that you do not provide a grave scandal to the confirmand (e.g., by setting a very bad example for him that may lead him into a gravely sinful lifestyle).

If you were divorcing your spouse in order to be able to pursue an adulterous affair you’ve been having then that would violate this clause, but this doesn’t sound like what you’re doing. It sounds like you are trying to preserve your marriage, so unless you are doing something else that is gravely contrary to the faith that would prevent you from fulfilling your duty to the confirmand (e.g., setting a bad example for him by being a known, ongoing adulterer, helping run an abortion clinic, openly opposing the Church’s teachings) then there is not a canonical barrier to serving as his sponsor.

Even if you were initiating a civil divorce it would not automatically be a disqualification since there are situations in which civil divorce is warranted.

There also might be things in one’s past that, at one time, would have made one an unsuitable sponsor because of the scandal that could result to the confirmand (e.g., if you used to live fast and loose), but if these have been repented of and firmly put behind one so that one is currently leading a non-scandalous life then there is not a canonical barrier to serving as sponsor.

So divorce itself is not a barrier to serving as a confirmation sponsor, and should this unfortunate and painful thing happen in your case, it would not of itself prevent you from serving as sponsor.

I hope this helps, and I encourage my readers to keep your marital situation in prayer.

God bless you!

Commentary Recommendation Redux

Several folks asked in the combox down yonder for some more info on what commentaries on the Scriptures that I like/recommend.

So here goes.

The Jewish commentary on Genesis that I mentioned is the volume on Genesis that is part of the Jewish Publications Society’s JPS Torah Commentary, edited by Nahum Sarna. The volumes I’ve read from the JPS Torah Commentary are good, and I really like the volume on Genesis, which Sarna also wrote.

These are expensive, so if you order one, make sure that Sarna’s name is attached to it. (The JPS also had an older Torah commentary which Sarna was not involved in. That’s not the one I’m talking about.)

I haven’t read enough of Sarna’s Understanding Genesis to comment on it, but his commentary on Genesis is top notch material.

Also good is Rashi’s commentary on Genesis. Rashi was the greatest Medieval Jewish Scripture commentator, but Rashi is very expensive and rather technical, so I’d only recommend him for someone who’s really wanting to do some intense work on Genesis.

A couple of folks asked what I think of the Navarre commentary series, and the answer is . . . It’s okay. It’s certainly theologically orthodox, but it is hampered for me by two things: (1) It’s hasn’t been available in a single, complete set and (2) it has a devotional angle rather than a scholarly angle.

This means that it’s not that suited for the kinds of uses I put commentaries to. I don’t really need a commentary that has footnotes with lots of devotional quotes from John Paul II and St. Josemaria Escriva (which the original volumes on the New Testament had). For anything that’s going to be a multi-volume set, I need something that’s going to survey the breadth of scholarly opinion and the arguments in favor of different positions.

The same consideration applies to the Ignatius Study Bible. It’s also hampered for me by not being available (yet) in a complete edition and not having the kind of technical orientation that I need, so I haven’t read enough of it to comment, really.

This points up something that is quite relevant here: I may not be the best person to recommend commentaries for most folks since most folks don’t put commentaries to the uses that my job requires me to.

When I want a quick take on a passage, I just go to Orchard, since that’s a decent 1-volume commentary that reflects traditional Catholic interpretations and which was written before Catholic biblical scholarship went hog wild for hypercritical speculations.

If I want more than a quick take, I go for much more detailed commentaries that many folks wouldn’t be interested in, so I don’t really spend a lot of time reading or using other non-technical commentaries (e.g., Navarre, Ignatius Study Bible).

One "lighter" set that I can recommend is IVP’s Bible Background Commentary, which is now available for both the Old and the New Testaments. This isn’t so much a commentary attempting to tell you what the text DOES mean but a resource for telling you the cultural and historical background that MIGHT help explain what the text says. It’s helpful and easy to read, though it has a singificant limitation in that it doesn’t footnote the background it provides. It leaves that for other, more detailed commentaries. Still, it’s very useful for what it attempts to do.

When it comes to those longer, technical commentaries, I tend not to buy complete sets (too expensive) but only the volumes for whatever book I’m studying at the moment. I do, however, have favorable impressions of certain sets.

For example, I’ve generally found the volumes of the Word Biblical Commentary to be quite good. (It’s also Protestant.) I know Fr. Mitch Pacwa also likes this series.

Certain volumes of the Sacra Pagina series are also good. (That’s a Catholic series, but this means that some volumes–since I haven’t read them all–may be heterodox.)

I’ll sometimes use the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (an Evangelical set) for the New Testament and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (a 19th century Protestant set).

I’d love to have some good Catholic commentary sets to recommend, but Catholics haven’t really been producing multi-volume commentaries of an in-depth nature (except Sacra Pagina) in recent years. They have been contributing individual volumes to some scholarly sets, but not whole, multi-volume commentaries by Catholic authors.

There are other commentaries I turn to as well, but these are of an even more technical nature and likely wouldn’t be of interest to any but a tiny number of people.

And then there’s the problems of heterodoxy and hypercriticalism.

The problem is that every commentary is going to have some flaws, multi-volume sets included. You can’t check your brain at the door when reading biblical commentary. You have to treat it as "idea starters" and figure out what you think the evidence best supports. That means that, regardless of whether the author you are reading is Catholic or non-Catholic, whether he is older or newer, you’re going to have to question and challenge what he says, because in the world of biblical commentary, heterodoxy, hypercriticalism, and plain ol’ ordinary being wrong are all over the place.

Unfortunatley, God has not given us an infallible, inspired Bible commentary. Instead, he is glorified by our efforts to use the reason that he gave us to wrestle with the text and try to figure out how to follow his thoughts behind him.

Irish Adam

Ireland has its very own Adam, an Irish warlord named Niall of the Nine Hostages — wonder how he got that name! — who is estimated to have more than three million male descendants. (Because of the manner in which the study was conducted, female descendants were not counted.)

"The scientists, from Trinity College Dublin, have discovered that as many as one in twelve Irish men could be descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, a 5th-century warlord who was head of the most powerful dynasty in ancient Ireland.

"His genetic legacy is almost as impressive as Genghis Khan, the Mongol emperor who conquered most of Asia in the 13th century and has nearly 16 million descendants, said Dan Bradley, who supervised the research.

"’It’s another link between profligacy and power,’ Bradley told Reuters. ‘We’re the first generation on the planet where if you’re successful you don’t (always) have more children.’"

GET THE STORY.

"We’re the first generation on the planet where if you’re successful you don’t (always) have more children."

Right. That’s because modern man has convinced himself that children stand in the way of success. As ancient man well knew but modern man has forgotten, children contribute to a person’s success, they don’t inhibit it.

B16 On His Encyclical

Well, there’s no need for further speculation on when B16’s first encyclical–Deus Caritas Est–will be coming out, because B16 himself has told us: next Wednesday.

He addressed the matter in his Wednesday audience this week.

On . . . January 25, moreover, my first encyclical will finally be published, the title of which is already known, "Deus Caritas Est," "God Is Love." The topic is not directly ecumenical, but the framework and background are ecumenical, as God and our love are the condition for the unity of Christians. They are the condition for peace in the world.

With this encyclical I would like to show the concept of love in its different dimensions. Today, in the terminology that it is known, "love" often seems something very remote from what a Christian thinks when he speaks of charity. I would like to show that it is one movement with different dimensions.

The "eros," the gift of love between man and woman, comes from the same source of the Creator’s goodness, as well as the possibility of a love that denies itself in favor of the other. The "eros" is transformed in "agape" in the measure in which the two really love one another and one no longer seeks oneself, one’s enjoyment, one’s happiness, but seeks above all the good of the other. In this way, the "eros" is transformed in charity, in a path of purification, of deepening. From one’s family one opens wide to the larger family of society, to the family of the Church, to the family of the world.

GET THE STORY.