Month: February 2006

Two Notable Resignations

The head of the Jesuit order, Fr. Hans Kolvenbach, has announced his resignation.

This is a very unusual move, as Jesuit superior generals normally hold office for life. According to some reports, he’s been trying to resign for the last ten years, but JP2 wouldn’t let him.

Now B16 has.

In announcing his resignation, Fr. Kolvenbach also announced the calling of a general congregation to elect his successor and to deal with other (apparently unnamed) serious problems affecting the order.

In view of the opposition that many in the Jesuit order have been giving to authentic Catholic teaching and practice in recent years on many issues but notably in recent months on the issue of whether homosexuals should be ordained, it will be interesting to see how the pope may intervene in this matter in the runup to the general convention in 2008.

This may be the beginning of the shakeup folks have been predicing under B16.

GET THE STORY.

In related news, B16 has approved the resignation of Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, who is now 76 and past the age for turning in his retirement letter (which the pope can accept or decline). Bishop Gumbleton has expressed his discomfort with the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, suggested future doctrinal change on this point, advocated the ordination of homosexuals, and been known for once wearing a mitre with a pink triangle on it in solidarity with homosexuals.

Maybe there isn’t a truce of 2005 after all.

Ice Melts… Film at Eleven.

Barne20glacier I am not a scientist. I don’t even play one on TV.

I am an artist.

I did have the interesting job of illustrating an archeological text once, though, and I worked for several years designing exhibits for a couple of historical museums, where I picked up a smattering of Earth Science (I know that Satan could not have made fossils, because fossils are cool). I really enjoyed my brief stint in scientific illustration and still have great fondness for the natural sciences.

For this reason,  irresponsible pseudo-scientific claptrap disguised as news reporting still rankles me, and I had to comment on THIS SENSATIONAL ARTICLE from FOX News (no less).

Setting the intellectual tone, we have the hysterical headline – "Unhealthy Earth: Global Warming Takes Toll".

The problem with this alarmist statement is in the assumption that if conditions on Earth are changing, that must be a sign that the planet is sick.

Listen, if that is the case, then the whole history of Earth is just one dread disease after another. If climate change = an unhealthy Earth, then the Earth has never been healthy.

Global temperature fluctuations are the norm. The only constant in geologic history is change. This change has been sometimes sudden and violent, sometimes gradual, but the one thing we can never reasonably expect is that the Earth should just stay the same. Environmental stasis is a utopian myth, and a uniquely stupid and dangerous one. Species have been going extinct since there have been species. Glaciers form. Glaciers melt. During the little ice age we have been in, glaciers have been forming. If the mean global temperature swings back upward, they will melt, as sure as God made little green apples. This can be taken as a sign of nothing except business as usual.

From a scientific perspective, all the hand-wringing over melting glaciers amounts to a misplaced and even neurotic nostalgia.

The article goes on to make temperate scientific observations like this;

"Some scientists say the receding glaciers, like canaries in a coal mine, are providing an early warning system for the Earth. They say human-caused global warming is making the sea level rise and can spawn floods — called glacier outbursts — brought on by glacial melting. "

Alright… first of all, any time you see an assertion that begins with "Some scientists say…" you need to remember, once you get to the end of the statement, to tack on the qualifier "and some don’t" (this is also true of the phrase "Many modern theologians think…", or "most modern scholars agree", or other such vaguely authoritative-sounding set-ups).

Secondly, this paragraph, by using the phrase "human-caused global warming" leaps from science to sheer propaganda. There is wide scientific debate on the extent to which human activity contributes to global warming, if it does to any measurable degree at all. It may be in fashion to blame SUVs or spray deodorant, but serious scientists are looking to volcanic activity, variances in the energy output of the sun, and a myriad of other natural causes as the prime sources of climate change, as has been the case throughout history. Can we nudge the atmosphere a little one way or another? Maybe, but the jury is still out. The assertion that human activity is behind climate change is a bald political statement, not a scientific one.

Not surprisingly, later in the piece we read;

"Some advocates say industry is largely responsible for global warming, and that large corporations should be held to their promises."

In case we doubt this assertion, it is backed up with weighty statements from Dan Becker, of the highly scientific and politically neutral Sierra Club. Nowhere in the piece do we hear from a scientist who might attribute global warming to natural causes, or who might see it as no cause for hysteria. Never do we even see the possibility that such a scientific viewpoint even exists.

I have come to expect a bit more from Fox News. Who wrote this screed? It sounds like something from a college news rag.

Should we use the Earth’s resources responsibly? Should we minimize pollution? Reduce waste? Be good stewards? Of course! But to help us do that we need good, reliable information, not junk science.

GET THE JUNKY STORY.

Most Bizarre Blog Entry?

Just a reminder that there’s still a little time to make nominations for the 2006 Catholic Blog Awards.

Here on JA.O, we’ve had quite a number of really unusual posts for a Catholic blog. Michelle, Tim J, and myself have handled quite a number of odd subjects–now in the archives–and folks might want to consider whether any of these are suitable for the Most Bizarre Blog Entry posts. If you think any are,

YOU CAN NOMINATE THEM HERE.

How Much Is It Worth?

A reader writes:

i have 3 antique typewrites that i would like to know the value of them.

  • webster shows no date in good condition
  • royal deluxe no date in good condition
  • olivetti underwood do date in good condition

they still all are in their cases

I’m afraid that appraising typewriters isn’t one of my specialities, but I’ll be of what help I can.

Since the monetary value of an item is based on the perceived utility it has in the eyes of its potential market, what you really need to do is determine what someone would pay for this, and there’s a quick way to do that: Put them on eBay and see what they sell for.

Of course, if they sell then you’ve got to give them to the person who bought them (or eBay will have your house burned down).

If you don’t want to sell them just yet but just want to get an idea then the thing to do is look at the prices of similar items that have recently been sold on eBay (not ones that people are still bidding on, since many people do what I do and wait until the last second to place a bid so as to minimize the chance of being outbid by someone else).

eBay really is the place to go for getting an idea of the market value of things like this. I heard an interview with an appraiser a while back talking about the fact that eBay has become the standard for accurate values these days, whereas before there were inefficient, market-constraining books that didn’t give you that good of an idea.

You could also try to find an antiques appraiser in your area (who will better be able to tell you if you’ve got a rare model on your hands–and thus whether you should set a special minimum price when you sell them on eBay) or go on the Antiques Roadshow if you can find where it’s being taped.

THERE’S ALSO AN ONLINE ANTIQUES APPRAISAL SERVICE HERE.

If you use it, be sure to include as much information about the typewriters as possible–including their model numbers.

Oh, and you could probably find some of those old appraiser’s books. Maybe you could get them on eBay!

Language Questions

A reader writes:

A few quick questions:

1)  Is the only difference between classical latin and ecclesiastical latin the pronunciation?

No. Ecclesiastical Latin also has vocabulary that classical Latin doesn’t (esp. biblical and theological terms). The grammar and syntax are also a little different. For example, ecclesiastical Latin has a tendency to use prepositions where classical Latin would rely on cases alone. This makes ecclesiastical Latin easier for English-speakers since we are used to using prepositions rather than cases.

2)  I know there are at least three different versions of the Vulgate floating around currently . . . is there a particular version/edition you recommend? I checked out a version of the Vatican’s edition of the ‘Nova Vulgata’ and it has absolutely no footnotes, introductions, etc., so I’m looking for something a bit different . . .

I’m afraid that I don’t have a special recommendation, here. I tend to use the Neo-Vulgate because it’s available for free, in electronic form, on the Vatican’s web site. (HERE.) I’ve seen a nice edition of the Vulgate NT with the Greek NT on the facing page, but with my preference for electronic formats (makes it easier when I’m writing), I haven’t bothered getting one. (And, unfortunately, I don’t have the name of it, though Googling should turn it up.)

3)  Similar question for the Septuagint . . . what edition should I pick up?

Same kind of answer as before. I don’t really have a recommendation. Almost any edition of the Septuagint will suffice for most purposes. Unless you’re doing someting of a scholarly nature, it really doesn’t matter which edition of the Vulgate or the Septuagint you use. Neither are original-language versions of the Bible, and if you’re just wanting them for language study or personal Bible study or for writing non-academic articles then any edition will work well.

Readers are welcome to share their favorite editions in the combox, though.

A Rosary A Day

Rosary

Michelle here.

Confession time: I am not a fan of the rosary.

Well, let me be a bit more clear: I appreciate the wonderful history and heritage attached to the rosary; I was impressed and grateful when John Paul II gave Catholics the luminous mysteries of the rosary (I even wrote an article with a sidebar on that event); I admire those who are have a devotion to the rosary. But I don’t. It’s always been a difficult prayer for me to pray. When I use my rosary beads, I usually use them to say the Divine Mercy chaplet, a prayer devotion that I personally prefer.

So, you can imagine my horror when a friend suggested that I pray a 54-day novena, a novena that entails saying five decades of the rosary for 54 days in a row! This friend is a spiritual mentor, so I didn’t reject her suggestion out of hand. I thought about it.

Then I said no.

My friend, like a good spiritual mentor should be, was perfectly fine with that. Then she had a brainstorm. She knew of a particular intention for which I had been praying for years. She suggested that I offer up some of the trials I had experienced over this past year for that particular intention to be fulfilled. Sounded like a great idea. She never even mentioned the 54-day novena.

It did occur to me though that a 54-day novena would be a significant and, for me, sacrificial, means by which I could offer up those trials for that intention. I sighed and told both my friend and the Blessed Mother that they had won. I’d do the 54-day novena.

I’ve been doing it for the few weeks and have about twenty days left. The reason I tell this story to you is because of a side benefit that praying this novena has had for me.

At first I prayed the novena while sitting on my couch in typical couch-potato style. Then I had a brainstorm.

I had been wanting to establish a walking routine for some time now, but for various reasons this had proven a fruitless effort. Then I realized that the rosary usually takes me about twenty minutes to pray. If I walked while I prayed the rosary, I would be walking twenty minutes per day. Not exactly an Iron Woman regimen, but it would be a good place for me to start.

You might think that a Couch Potato like me would have difficulty doing the whole rosary before needing a break. The first night I only got through three decades before needing to sit down, but after that I could do all five. And so, for twenty minutes per night I’ve been pacing my living-room floor praying the rosary in this 54-day novena.

At this rate, and assuming I maintain my Rosary A Day after the novena is finished, I expect to reach China sometime in the next century.

NOTE: Any and all prayers you want to add to mine for my special intention would be greatly appreciated.

St. Blase Questions

A reader writes:

Every year, our pastor offers the blessing of throats on the feast of St. Blaise.  The folks at Mass line up in two rows, just like for communion, and the priest gives blessings on one side while a woman from the congregation gives blessings on the other side.

My understanding of canon 1169 is that only ordained persons can give blessings.  (Oh, I should have mentioned that the woman in question is not a priest or a deacon.)  So I worry that the non-priest blessing throats is in fact simulating a sacred thing, and that there is some kind of sacriledge involved.

Let’s start with canon 1169, since you mention it. Here ’tis:

Can.  1169 §1. Those marked with the episcopal character and presbyters permitted by law or legitimate grant can perform consecrations and dedications validly.

§2. Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.

§3. A deacon can impart only those blessings expressly permitted by law.

If that’s all the law said then your conclusion that only a cleric can give sacramentals like the St. Blase blessing would be arguable, but that’s not all that the law says. There is also canon 1168:

Can.  1168 The minister of sacramentals is a cleric
who has been provided with the requisite power. According to the norm of the
liturgical books and to the judgment of the local ordinary lay persons who
possess the appropriate qualities can also administer some sacramentals.

So the question is: Is the St. Blase blessing one that the liturgical books empower lay people to give?

Yes.

The Book of Blessings provides the following:

1626 The blessing of throats may be given by a priest, deacon, or a lay minister who follows the rites and prayers designated for a lay minister. If the blessing is conferred during Mass, the blessing follows the homily and general intercessions, or, for pastoral reasons, the prayer of blessing may take the place of the final blessing of the Mass. When the blessing is given outside Mass, it is preceded by a brief celebration of the word of God. If the blessing is to be celebrated at Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer, it is given after the reading and responsory (and homily) and before the gospel canticle.

While we at it, let’s clear up a few other potential worries that folks might have based on what they see and hear at Mass today regarding the St. Blase blessing.

1627 The blessing may be given by touching the throat of each person with two candles blessed on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord (February 2) and which have been joined together in the form of a cross.

1628 If, for pastoral reasons, each individual cannot be blessed in the manner described in no. 1627, for example when great numbers are gathered for the blessing or when thememorial of Saint Blase occurs on a Sunday, a priest or deacon may give the blessing to all assembled by extending hands, without the crossed candles, over the people while saying the prayer of blessing. A lay minister says the prayer proper to lay ministers without making the sign of the cross.

1629 The blessing may also be given to the sick or the elderly in their homes when they cannot attend the parish celebration.

1633 . . . During trhe blessing suitable psalms or other suitable songs may be sung.

Hope this helps!

The Framework Interpretation

The Framework Interpretation holds that the six days of creation are not intended to be taken literally as a chronology of how God made the world. That’s what they seem to be on the surface, but there are clues in the text–such as the creation of the sun three days after the day/night cycle has been established–that tell us that this is not meant to be taken literally.

The Framework Interpretation holds that Genesis 1 tells us what God did without attempting to tell us in a literal fashion when God did it. Instead, the facts of creation have been fitted into the framework of a single Hebrew week. (The week being a characteristic measure of time among the Hebrews; prior ancient cultures didn’t have weeks.)

The Fourth Day sun problem that other interpretations have (and have typically solved by introducing things the text does not mention, like atmospheric conditions that clear up, allowing the sun to be seen, or days that overlap each other chronologically) is of itself significant evidence for the Framework Interpretation.

But the interpretation could be strengthened if we could sketch out the specific way in which the events of creation have been fitted into a framework–in other words, if we could point to the framework itself. It’s a fair question, after all: "If this isn’t organized chronologically, how is it organized?"

A careful reading of the text reveals this, and we can see not just that the author has arranged things out of chronological order in a way detectable to the ancients, we can see specifically how he has organized them. We know what his organizational criteria were.

For centuries it has been recognized that the six days of creation are divided into two sets of three. In the first set, God divides one thing from another: He divides the light and the darkness on Day One (giving rise to day and night), he divides the waters above from the waters below on Day Two (giving rise to the sky and the sea), and he divides the waters below from each other (giving rise to the dry land) on Day Three. Classically, this is known as the work of division or distinction.

In the second three days, God goes back over the realms he produced in the first three days by division and then populates or "adorns" them. On Day Four he populates the day and the night with the sun, moon, and stars. On Day Five he populates the sky and sea with the birds and the fish. And on Day Six he populates the land (between the divided waters) with the animals and man. Classically, this is known as the work of adornment.

That this two-fold movement represents the ordering principle of Genesis 1 also is reflected at the beginning and end of the narrative. At the beginning we are told that "the earth was without form and void" (Gen. 1:2). The work of distinction cures the "without form" problem, and the work of adornment cures the "void" (empty) problem. Likewise, at the end of the narrative we are told "the heavens and the earth were finished [i.e., by distinction], and all the host of them [i.e., by adornment]" (2:1).

People have recognized for centuries that these are the ordering principles at work in Genesis 1. This is not something modern Bible scholars came up with (e.g., see Aquinas, ST I:74:1).

I don’t fault anyone who has a different view of the text (particularly the Ordinary Day Interpretation), but this one seems to me to be the most plausible view if you give the text a careful reading.

The dislocation of the creation of the sun thus tells us that the text is using a non-chronological ordering, and the recognition of the two phases of creation (distinction and adornment) proceeding through the same three spheres (day & night > sky & sea > dry land) tells us what ordering system is being used.

And none of this is predicated on modern science. It was all there "in the beginning."

The Ordinary Day Interpretation

The Ordinary Day Interpretation of Genesis 1 holds that the six days of creation are six 24-hour days that followed each other consecutively (not overlapping, with no gaps), so that God created the world and had a day left over to rest in the space of an ordinary week.

This is the most plausible interpretation of the text if you give it a casual reading, which is why it has been the overwhelmingly most popular interpretation throughout Church history (and before). Most folks in history have read the text in a casual manner (or, at least, a manner that didn’t give full weight to the points that I’ll get into), and if you do that then this seems to be the obvious interpretation of the text.

I have a lot of respect for this interpretation–much more respect than I do for the others we’ve considered–because it does so much justice to the different aspects of Genesis 1.

I think that there is an interpretation that is even more plausible if you give the text a careful reading, but I want to give the Ordinary Day Interpretation its dues. It’s an interpretation that a reasonable person can come to upon reading the text–as evidence by the fact that so many reasonable people have done so throughout history. It’s more plausible by leaps and bounds than the others we have considered. And I would most definitely hold this view of the text if I didn’t think there was a more plausible one.

But I think there is. The first big clue to that is the fact that the day/night cycle is established on Day One but the sun isn’t created until Day Four. As I mentioned, the ancients knew just as well as we do that it’s the light of the sun that causes it to be day and the absence of the sun that causes it to be night. Origen and Augustine even commented on the fact that the creation of the sun is dislocated from the creation of the day/night cycle.

Now: We know from other passages in Scripture that the biblical authors didn’t always record things in chronological order, but sometimes recorded them according to other criteria, and the dislocation of the creation of the sun and the day/night cycle is a big clue that that’s what we’re looking at here.

It’s the author’s way of telegraphing to the audience the fact that this is a non-chronological sequence and that we need to look more deeply at the text to figure out what’s going on.

That leads to the final and–I think–most plausible interpretation of the text on strictly literary grounds.