February 2006 – Page 4

Holy Terror, Batman!

Who do you turn to when U.S. military intelligence and Special Forces cannot ferret out Osama bin Laden? No, not Ghosbusters. You put out a page for Batman.

Of course.

"Bored with pitting his wits against the Joker and the Riddler, Batman is setting his sights on a more challenging target — Osama bin Laden.

"Holy Terror, Batman! an upcoming graphic novel from famed Batman writer Frank Miller, sees the caped crusader facing off against Al-Qaeda operatives who attack Gotham City.

"Miller, who has already inked his way through 120 pages of the 200-page opus, told a recent comic book convention that the novel was an unashamed "piece of propaganda" in which Batman ‘kicks Al-Qaeda’s ass’ [crudity in the original]."

GET THE STORY.

The Daily Planet has confirmed that Hollywood moguls are seeking to acquire the rights to Holy Terror, Batman! Christian Bale is expected to reprise his role as the Dark Knight from Batman Begins but there is no word yet on which actors are being considered for the role of archvillain Bin Laden.

Vere Vs. Vree

Guestblogger Ed Peters writes:

Lately it seems that ripping Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review has become many people’s favorite past time. Of course, Vree is no stranger to intellectual street-fighting, so knocking NOR is nothing new. But to this observer, the pile-on looks like it’s getting out of hand. For example, just recently, Pete Vere, an early-30s, fairly well-known, orthodox Catholic blogger from Canada, thrice taunted Dale Vree (who is twice Vere’s age) for virtually being at death’s door and therefore practically out of time to repent of his publishing sins lest he go to hell. (I am not making this up). That does it. Somebody, hold my glasses. I’m going in.

Dale Vree is not omniscient, his logical skills are not perfect, and sometimes he fails in patience and charity. In other words, he’s a lot like me. But also, I’m guessing, like Pete Vere. Furthermore, Vree’s New Oxford Review has all the strengths and all the weaknesses of an opinion journal dominated by one man’s opinions.

This means, when Dale Vree is right, he is very, very, Churchill-in-the-1930s-right; but when he is wrong, he is very, very, Chamberlain-back-from-Munich-wrong. While Dale Vree has often shown deep courage by standing up against powerful persons and forces for what is right, even when that stand costs him dearly—and some of Vree’s righteous fights have cost him dearly—at other times he seems unable to get off the merry-go-round of his own arguments long enough for the spinning to pass and his arguments to clear.

If I need to say it, I disagree with several positions Vree and the NOR have taken over the years. I have regretted seeing him go after some people I greatly respect and with whom I largely agree. But by the same token, some people I respect have gone after Dale Vree in unprofessional—and lately quite uncharitable—ways; that too causes grief. Was Rodney King all wet when he pleaded “Why can’t we all just get along?”

I’ve been reading NOR off and on for some 25 years—almost as long as Pete Vere has been alive—and there’s an old saying I just made up: “Blessed are the believing GenXers, for theirs is a world with abundant outlets for orthodox expression.” They can’t remember the bad ole days, when virtually every organ of religious and secular media was dominated by the monolithic chant of “Burn, baby, burn. The future belongs to therapy, not theology.” And, as if the flowering of alternative print and broadcast media were not enough, anybody with a keyboard and modem (technology that Vree has been slow to exploit, to his disadvantage in modern debate) can broadcast their opinions around the world in seconds. Fewer people remember when, for his articulate defense of Catholic principles, Dale Vree was perhaps the loneliest man in Catholic publishing. But I remember those days, and say that if, in the twilight of his career, Dale Vree is making some unnecessary enemies, that is a genuine matter for concern and individual confrontation by his peers, not for disrespectful rebukes from youth.

Has Vree brought some of this on by going after the wrong people, or at any rate going after the right people in the wrong way? Maybe so. But at the same time, the information age never forgets one’s earlier error: if, for example, Vree erred in publishing a critique of so-and-so’s writings, few bothered to read fairly Vree’s second, much more sophisticated, critique of the same person’s work, and instead immediately, and loudly, excoriated Vree for publishing “more of the same.”

Midway though the mediocre movie, Separate Tables (1958), there is a gem of a line: “The trouble about being on the side of right is that often one finds oneself in the company of such very questionable allies.” In a huge world made suddenly very small, I think of that line often. We who participate in public debates often find ourselves being joined by questionable allies; for that matter, we cause others to worry about being associated with us. That analysis applies to Dale Vree and NOR as much as it applies to any of us. But in the meantime, the tone of the NOR debate needs to change.

Consider: even if every criticism made against Dale Vree’s person and publication were sound—there are obviously questions about that—would that legitimate responding to him in kind and implying judgments about the state of his soul that even the holiest pope in history would not presume to make?

A New Tack On Islam?

When Cardinal Ratzinger, who had openly complained about the Vatican bureaucracy in interviews, was elected pope, it was widely expected that he would shake up the Roman curia and reform it. This may well be an agenda item of his, but so far ther hasn’t been a major overhaul publicly announced.

What he has been doing is transferring certain people in a slow, deliberate manner, and these transfers have led to widespread speculation about the significance of the moves. For example, when the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (the man under Cardinal Arinze) was transferred, it was widely regarded as a sign that the man was unsuitable for his position.

Now the president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (the body responsible for dialogue with Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) has been transferred from his position and made nuncio for Egypt.

What does this mean?

John Allen suggests that it’s a break with the approach that has been taken toward Islam in recent years. Many at the Holy See have taken an over-conciliatory approach to Islam that has failed to appreciate the challenges the Church and western society faces regarding Islam. Since being elected pontiff, B16 has shown himself willing to call attention to the need for Muslims to reject violence and terrorism, which is already a shift in emphasis, and the transfer may be more of the same.

Allen writes:

It [the transfer]’s certainly not a question of personality. Nobody dislikes Fitzgerald, who is universally admired for his graciousness, his work ethic and his content-area expertise. He is an Oxford-educated expert on Islam, probably the best mind working on Christian-Islamic relations among the senior leadership of the church.

Yet within the Roman Curia, Fitzgerald is — rightly or wrongly — identified with what was seen by some as a "soft" approach to Islam under John Paul II. That line was never fully embraced by senior figures who advocate a policy more akin to "tough love." One example is Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the pope’s vicar for Rome. These officials desire good relations with Islam, but also a more robust capacity to challenge and critique Islamic leaders, especially on issues of "reciprocity" — the idea that if Muslim immigrants benefit from religious freedom in the West, Christians should get the same treatment in Islamic states.

It’s a view that to some extent Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, shared while at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that sense, Fitzgerald’s transfer could be interpreted as a choice for a somewhat different approach.

GET THE STORY.

Neocatechumenal Update: New Arinze Interview

Cardinal Arinze, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as given an interview in which he addresses the liturgical directives that were recently issued to the Neocatechumenal Way.

The Cardinal presents the matter in a very kind, face-saving way, but he is clear on the points (which had been disputed by some Neocatechumenal spokesmen) that these directives are not a complete vindication of the NW’s liturgical practice and that the directives ARE to be followed and are not just a working document that needs further approval in order to go into force.

EXCERPT:

Q: How did this letter [that conveyed the directives] come about?

Cardinal Arinze: It stemmed from the results of this congregation’s examination of the way in which the Neocatechumenal Way has celebrated holy Mass for many years, as, following the approval of the statutes by the Pontifical Council for the Laity — for a five-year period — the rest of the Vatican dicasteries had to effect the approvals in their domain. Our congregation’s domain is the liturgy.

To carry out this examination, we created a mixed commission of persons named by the Neocatechumenal Way and by our congregation. In the discussions, many practices emerged which they carry out during the Mass. They were examined and it was seen that many of them were not done according to the approved books.

This is the background. Everything has been examined in many sessions by the mixed commission for a period of two years or more. And a discussion also took place among seven cardinals of the Roman Curia at the request of the Holy Father, who examined everything. Therefore, this letter is the conclusion of this whole process.

GET THE STORY.

Speaking Of Reconciliations . . .

Catholic News Service has a story about the meeting that Pope Benedict had this Wednesday with curial officials about the possibility of reconciling the Society of St. Pius X.

EXCERPTS:

More than 20 heads of congregations and pontifical councils attended the Feb. 13 meeting, which was to be followed up by a similar session in late March. No details of the February meeting were made available by the Vatican press office.

Several Vatican sources said that while Cardinal Castrillon strongly supported a solution based on these points opinions were sharply divided among curial members on any concessions to the Lefebvrites.

One Vatican source who participated in the February meeting of curial heads said he thought the pope wanted to make one big push for reconciliation at the beginning of his pontificate.

"I think it’s now or never for the Lefebvrites. As time passes, an agreement will become much more difficult," he said.

GET THE STORY.

Catholic Blog Awards Update

It has come to my attention that, although JimmyAkin.Org had a very substantial lead in the Best Apologetics Blog category, this lead is now gone and another blog is not ahead.

Although I was nominated for a bunch of categories, this is the one I care about most, as it is what I do professionally.

I would therefore invite folks to go vote–whether your have voted before or not.

The way the rules of this work, one can vote once per day, so people are not limited to voting a single time.

I haven’t mentioned that point up to now, though I have seen other blogmasters do so–inlcuding the blogmaster who is currently ahead in the apologetics category, who just yesterday urged his readers to "vote early and often," quoting Al Capone.

I’ve tried to avoid that kind of thing, but with the category of Best Apologetics in question, I thought that I’d better mention this aspect of the rules, and I’d ask you to vote for JA.O, even if you have already done so. I’d love votes in any category for which the blogis nominated, but I’m particularly interested in the Best Apologetics category.

Incidentally, you do not need to be Catholic to vote in these awards.

Thanks for your consideration.

GO HERE TO VOTE.

An Anglican Rite?

A reader writes:

What do you think of the rumors of an autonomous rite for Anglicans who wish to be in communion with the Holy See? As a former Episcopal priest who came into the church, I have mixed feelings about such an arrangement. I miss some of the accidents of Anglicanism, e.g., the hymnody and the quasi-Tridentine precision of a solemn high Mass the way we did it, but I do not miss the culture of dissent that is so much more prevalent in Anglicanism or the devaluation of theology in practical terms. I am very interested in what you think.

I don’t know that I personally have a lot to say. I’m in support, in principle, of the restoration of other bodies of Christians to full communion with the Catholic Church, and historically this has often been accomplished through the creation of a new "rite" in the Church–or what would more properly be called a new church sui iuris (Latin, "with it’s own law").

If that’s the best way to faciliate the reunion of (some) Anglicans, then I’m for it.

Such matters have to be handled very carefully, though, to ensure that it is a true restoration of full communion and not a papering over of differences.

There are also other risks as well. I was aware of it when a similar effort in the 1990s was underway (claims vary about whether was to be a new church sui iuris or some other kind of canonical structure), and it all fell apart when the former Anglican bishop who would have been the head of the new rite defected from the Church.

"Once burned, twice shy," as they say. The Vatican will need to make very sure of the leadership of the body coming into union. You don’t want to have the spectacle of a grand reunion followed by a new schism of the same people hot on its heels.

It is my understanding that the Anglicans involved in this process may not have the dissident ethos that you mention, though I don’t know if that applies to these bodies as a whole. My
familiarity with the precise theological tenor of these circles is quite limited.

So I don’t know whether the time is right for this, though I hope so. I’d like to see a new church sui iuris added to the Church in my lifetime, but it needs to be done the right way, and there are a number of significant issues to be solved.

For more on all this,

SEE THIS POST OVER AT PONTIFICATIONS, which links to a number of things, including

THIS VERY INFORMATIVE POST AT THE CONTINUUM.

The Canon Of The Sacraments?

A reader writes:

I have recently heard a Catholic priest state that the number of sacraments was not always seven, and in fact was not defined until the 11th or 12th century. My understanding on this is that the term sacraments at one point had a broader meaning.

Correct.

For instance, Christ Himself may be considered a sacrament.

Well, that’s not the example I would cite. People can still refer to Christ or to the Church as sacraments in an extended sense. In the sense of the term that we’re after, a sacrament is a sacred rite of some kind that is performed by Christians. Jesus and the Church don’t qualify under that meaning of the term.

Some believed that funerals are sacraments.

Yes, this is a good example. Also blessings, foot washing, and the anointing of kings have been cited as sacraments.

How would you respond to the contention that the number of sacraments varied in the earlier Church (pre 11th century), yet the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Faith and has never erred in matters of faith and morals?

I would point out that the term sacramentum is not found in the Bible (its Greek equivalent–musterion–is found in the Bible, but does not seemed to be used in the sense that we are investigating). It is therefore a theological term that the Church has come to use to describe certain biblical realities.

Because it is a theological term, its boundaries are what the Church says its boundaries are. These boundaries changed over time. Originally, it was applied to various sacred rites, but as theology progressed, the Church began to make a distinction between those sacred rites that were given to us by Jesus himself to convey grace sacramentally and those that were not.

Other, similar rites that either didn’t come from Jesus (like the anointing of kings) or that don’t convey grace sacramentally (like footwashing) therefore became known as sacramentals–things that were like sacraments in some ways but not in others.

As it reflected on these matters, the Church eventually discerned that that there were seven biblical realities that count as sacraments in the modern sense. There had always been those seven–and only those seven–that were sacraments in this sense, but this fact previously masked by the lack of precision with which the word sacrament was being used. When it’s used in the precise sense, it picks out these seven things and only these seven things, which have always been sacraments in this sense.

This kind of parallels the formation of the canon of Scripture. Originally there were a bunch of religious writings circulating in Jewish and Christian communities, and it took time for the Church to discern which of these were inspired and which were not. (E.g., yesterday we talked about two first century documents: 1 Corinthians, which is inspired, and the Didache, which is not inspired.)

The inspired books had always been inspired. It just took time for the canon of scripture to be discerned by the Church, but eventually the Church signed off on it infallibly. The same thing happened to what we might call "the canon of the sacraments."

That’s why this doesn’t conflict with the Church’s infallibility: Because before a certain point in time the Church had not addressed the matter infallibly.

If you want to show this to the priest, you might want to point to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter:

1114 "Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . . . of the Fathers," we profess that "the sacraments of the new law were . . . all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord."

1117 As she has done for the canon of Sacred Scripture and for the doctrine of the faith, the Church, by the power of the Spirit who guides her "into all truth," has gradually recognized this treasure received from Christ and, as the faithful steward of God’s mysteries, has determined its "dispensation." Thus the Church has discerned over the centuries that among liturgical celebrations there are seven that are, in the strict sense of the term, sacraments instituted by the Lord.

Maranatha

For those who may ont be aware, maranatha is a word based on what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 16:11:

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha (KJV).

Unfortunately, maranatha is not a single word in Aramaic. It’s a combination of two words, and the correct division of them here is not clear.

This has not stopped countless Evangelical ministries from slapping Maranatha on all kinds of things, though.

Now, with that as introduction, a reader writes:

How does not pronounce: Marana tha and Maran atha?

And am I correct that it was used as a short prayer?

I assume that the first question is "how does one pronounce" these two phrases.

The easies way to answer that is to simply show you how they’re pronounced, so I did a quick audiopost over on my audio blog.

LISTEN TO IT HERE.

As to its use as a prayer, we need to go into what it means.

The early manuscripts that we have do not have spaces between the words, and so we have to guess at word division.

It’s clear that the first word of the phrase means "Our Lord," rendered here as Mar (the ordinary Aramaic word for "Lord"), with the possessive suffix "our" tacked on to it. The question is: What is the suffix? Is it -an or -ana? This is what causes the two word divisions as marana tha and maran atha.

The first of these is commonly understood to mean "Our Lord, come!" and the second clearly means "Our Lord comes" (or "Our Lord has come.")

My Aramaic instructor (who is a native speaker of modern Aramaic and who uses classical Aramaic professionally) is utterly convinced that the first division of the word is wrong. In fact, he is contemptuous of those who use the first division as know-nothings on Aramaic.

If I recall correctly, he has three arguments for this:

-ana simply is not a pronoun suffix in Aramaic.
Putting the verb atheh into the imperative form would not cause the first letter (which is a consonant in Aramaic) to drop off.
Even if the first letter did drop off, the pronunciation rules of Aramaic would require the resulting word to be pronounced ta, not tha.

Normally I generally defer to my instructor on such matters, but let’s look briefly at his arguments.

1. I do have at least a couple of grammars of early Aramaic on my shelves listing -ana as the suffix meaning "our," so there may have been some dialects of Aramaic where "our" was -ana rather than just -an.

2. This seems to be the weightiest argument. I’ve consulted multiple grammars and lexicons, and unless the verb atheh had a really, really irregular imperative form in Paul’s dialect, it just should not become tha (or ta). It should be atha, and I can find no indication in any of the lexicons that it had an irregular form in in the imperative. Some lexicons explicitly list atha as the imperative form.

3. This argument also has weight, though it could be gotten around if marana ta had already become perceived as one word, in which case the usual pronunciation rules would change it to maranatha. The problem is that this seems to be a distinctively Christian phrase (applying specifically to Jesus and not to God as "Our Lord"), and there just weren’t that many years between Jesus’ ministry and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. It’s hard to imagine marana ta becoming one word that fast.

I think there’s also exegetical evidence that points to the correct reading being Maran atha. Paul has just issued a "Let him be anathema." It seems to me that it makes more sense to say "Let him be anathema [because] Our Lord comes" than "Let him be anathema. Come, Our Lord!"

The first would make Maran atha an affirmation of the Lord’s future coming, when those who have become anathema will be judged. The second would be a vengeful calling down of divine judgment upon them.

As to its use in prayer, if Maranatha is understood as "Our Lord, Come!" then it’s a prayer on its face.

Even if not, it still became part of Christian prayer via the liturgy. In the Didache ("did-ah-khay") the instructions regarding the Eucharist include what seems to be a part of a prayer which reads in part:

10:12 Hosanna to the God of David.
10:13 If any man is holy, let him come;
10:14 If any man is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen [SOURCE].

In this case Maran atha isn’t a term addressed directly to God but is an affirmation term, like Amen, which functions at the end of a prayer to mean (roughly) "So may it be" or "It is so." This also is not a word addressed directly to God on its face, but is an affirmation that one has confidence in what God will do. Maran atha, like Amen, thus may be a prayer affirmation addressed indirectly to God.

The Didache is a first century Christian document that may not have been written very long after Paul lived. Some even argue that it was contemporary with Paul’s letters. However that may be, neither Paul nor the Didache are the likely source of the phrase. They are both probably drawn on an earlier source, possibly the first liturgies celebrated in the Aramaic-speaking Christian community.

Andreas Katsulas Passes

Andreas Katsulas, best known for his depiction of the character G’Kar on Babylon 5, has died.

He was 59.

The cause of death was lung cancer.

MORE HERE.

May he rest in peace, and may perpetual light shine upon him.

(Katsulas is the second member of the Babylon 5 family to die. The first was Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Franklin and who died unexpectedly from a tear in his aorta.)

I must say that my views on Katsulas changed over the course of time. Originally, I didn’t like him. I first became aware of him when he was playing the Romulan character Tomalak on Star Trek: The Next Generation, and I thought he played the part in an unpleasing, cartoon-of-a-villain way.

When B5 started, this view was confirmed, because originally G’Kar was an even more over-the-top cartoon of a villain than Tomalak ever dreamed of being.

But this was a fakeout on JMS’s part, and he always meant G’Kar to evolve from villain to spiritual leader, and Andreas Katsulas has the range as an actor to be able to make that amazing transformation.

I know that Joe must have told him to play G’Kar in the pilot and much of the first season as a swaggering stereotype, and knowledge of his true range leads me to think that maybe as Tomalak he just got bad direction. Star Trek has always had a lot of wooden, cartoonish acting, and maybe that just what the directors told him to give them.

I’m glad I got a chance to see what he was really capable of.

Katsulas also was one of the few actors in Hollywood to regularly work under massive amounts of prosthetic make-up. (And one of the few willing to do so.) Though he did have parts in which he didn’t have latex glued all over his face, most fans know him only through his sci-fi appearances, and his true visage is not often seen.

So in honor of his passing, let’s look at the man without the make-up.