Month: March 2006

Pre-Red Hat Giveaway Staff Meeting

Yesterday–the day before the red hat giveaway–Pope B16 held a pre-consistory meeting with the college of cardinals. This was a day of prayer, reflection, and discussion about topics of interest to the Church at large.

So of course they held it behind closed doors.

That didn’t stop word from getting out about what they talked about, partly through a press release and partly through cardinals who spilled a few beans.

EXCERPTS:

There was no formal agenda, but in an opening talk the pope mentioned three specific concerns for discussion, according to a Vatican press statement:

— "The condition of retired bishops."

— "The question raised by (Archbishop Marcel) Lefebvre and the liturgical reform desired by the Second Vatican Council."

— "Questions connected with the dialogue between the church and Islam."

The pope invited the cardinals to raise other issues of their own and said the exchange should take place in a spirit of unity and communion.

Cardinal Wilfrid F. Napier of Durban, South Africa, told CNS that he did not think the pope was looking for a "yes or no" response from the cardinals on the Lefebvrites.

One bishop suggested raising the retirement age from the current limit of 75 years.

It was the pope’s idea to convene the meeting, and Vatican sources said it signaled a strong advisory role for the world’s cardinals under the new pontificate.

There was also tech support for the less tech savvy cardinals:

It fell to Archbishop Monterisi to explain a few practical details: where to tune into simultaneous translations in four languages — English, French, Italian and Spanish, how to request the microphone and how to turn up the headphone volume on the consoles.\

GET THE STORY.

MORE FROM ZENIT.

Vatican Holds One-Day Red Hat Giveaway!

By the time you read this (if you’re in America), B16 should have given the Church 15 new cardinals.

Today is the day of the consistory that he convoked for the creation of the new cardinals that were announced last month.

Many folks will undoubtedly be curious about just what happens at a consistory, so it’s fortunate that Zenit has

THIS STORY DEALING WITH THE WORKINGS OF A CONSISTORY.

Among other things, the new cardinals are required to swear the following oath:

"I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law. So help me Almighty God."

Then each new cardinal will approach the Pope and kneel before him to receive the red hat and be assigned a title or deaconry. The Pope will say, in part:

"It is red as a sign of the dignity of the office of a cardinal, signifying that you are ready to act with fortitude, even to the point of spilling your blood for the increase of the Christian faith, for peace and harmony among the people of God, for freedom and the spread of the Holy Roman Catholic Church."

MORE INFO FROM AMERICAN PAPIST.

A Mormon President?

Feddie over at Southern Appeal has

AN INTERESTING POST ON WHETHER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY MIGHT BE THE GOP’S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2008.

The post concerns, among other things, the fact that Romney is a Mormon, and there is a question of whether the Republican party’s base will support him enough for him to be the nominee–and, if not, how Mormon Republicans will react to that.

I’m not a Republican. I’m not a member of any political party–nor do I want to be. But I do have some thoughts on this issue.

I don’t know whether the Republican base is willing to support Romney enough to make him the ’08 nominee (though I doubt it, for a variety of reasons, including the fact he’s apparently a bit soft on life issues–which is common for Mormons). Nor do I know how Mormon Republicans might perceive this or what action they might take.

But I do know this: Mitt Romney is not going to be president.

Even if he’s put up against a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton, he’s not going to be president.

Why?

Because the nation is too narrowly divided at the moment. George Bush lost the popular vote in ’00 because of the drunk driving issue that surfaced at the last minute and caused a percentage of Evangelical voters to get disillusioned with him and stay home on Election Day. He easily could have lost the popular vote (and the electoral vote) if his opponent in ’04 hadn’t been such a walking disaster of a candidate.

Things are just too tight right now for a Republican presidential candidate to be able to get into office if a significant chunk of the Evangelical or Catholic vote decides to just stay home.

Having a Mormon on the ticket is just the thing to cause that to happen.

Sure, many Evangelicals and Catholics will hold their nose and vote for a Mormon if the alternative is an abortion harpy like Hillary. Many would conclude that, as bad as having a polytheist with aspirations to godhood would be as Commander In Chief, it’s something that must be endured for the sake of the babies who’ll get killed through the extension of the abortion holocaust.

That’s assuming Roe is still in place in ’08, which it may not be. If it’s not then Evangelicals and Catholics have even LESS incentive to vote for a Mormon.

But while many would vote for him, many would also stay home.

Think about it from the perspective of the stay-homers: "Despite claims to the contrary, Mormons are not just other Christians. They’re not Christians at all. They are polytheists who themselves believe that they can become gods, running planets or universes with billions of people worshipping them for all eternity," the stay-homers would say. "Worse, they are polytheists with aspirations to godhood who ARE MASQUERADING AS CHRISTIANS, saying that true Christianity IS polytheism with the possibility of becoming the god of your own planet or universe."

"Can you imagine what it would do to validate Mormonism in the public eye if a Mormon were elected president?" the stay-homers would say. "It would cause VAST numbers of people–all over the world–would be duped into thinking that Mormons are Christians and that their religion is ‘okay.’ Many would even convert."

That’s something that is so frightening a prospect that a significant number of Evangelicals and Catholics will conclude–no matter who the opposing nominee is–is simply unacceptable, even if it means delaying the end of the abortion holocaust.

I’m not saying that such folks would be right or wrong. I’m simply saying that they exist–and that they exist in significant enough numbers to cause the Republicans to lose the election.

Mormons may be electable as governors in states like Utah, where Mormons are a majority, or Massachusetts, where people don’t take religion seriously. But you need more than Utah and Massachusetts to win the presidency as a Republican.

You also need Georgia and the Carolinas and Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas and Arkansas and Tennessee and Kentucky and Oklahoma and all kinds of places like that where they take religion much more seriously and where Mormons are only a tiny percentage of the state population.

There’s also the collateral loss of votes from the fact that a Mormon standardbearer would depress the base.

The Republican base depends heavily on Evangelicals and Catholics to give money, get out the vote, and talk up their candiates. If a significant chunk of the base is holding their noses about their nominee, that’s going to have an effect. Even if hardcore partisans are willing to hold their noses and vote for a Mormon, they won’t be excitedly and enthusiastically behind him. They won’t be motivated to give money or put up yard signs or make phone calls or stuff envelopes, or what have you. The energized get-out-the-vote effort that won the election for Bush in ’04 simply won’t be there for a Mormon.

In his post, Feddie remarks that Mormons are important allies in the culture war. That’s true. We need all the votes we can get to end abortion, and while the Mormon church is softer on abortion than it should be, Mormons are important allies in the fight to end abortion.

But there’s a difference between having someone as an ally and having him as a leader. Coalitions need all kinds of people as allies who wouldn’t be acceptable as leaders. That’s the nature of things.

And there are many Evangelicals and Catholics who would find a polytheist who is open to the idea of his own eventual godhood to be unacceptable as a leader.

Enough to cost the Republicans the election.

666218

Papal_titlesY’know how B16 just dropped his title "Patriarch of the West"?

The place that he dropped it from was the list of official titles he has in a book known as the Annuario Pontificio ("Papal Yearbook") that the Vatican publishes every year.

If you want to look up the pope’s official titles, this is the place to go.

So how about the Seventh-Day Adventist (and others’) claim that one of the pope’s titles is Vicarius Filii Dei ("Vicar of the Son of God") and that this adds up to 666 in Latin?

Well, t’aint so!

For a start, we can quibble about whether they’ve done their Latin math right. When you put a smaller number to the left of a bigger number, it subtracts rather than adds. IV is 4 in Latin, not 6, and VICARIVS FILII DEI has a IV in it, which would pull the total down to 664. Also, if you let IL count as 49 instead of 51 then the number comes down to 662.

But we don’t need to go there, because if you look at the pope’s official titles, Vicarius Filii Dei ain’t one of ’em!

Above is the page from the 2004 Annuario listing the pope’s official titles. Because this edition is a couple of years old, it lists John Paul II as the reigning pope, and it still has Patriarca Dell’Occidente ("Patriarch of the West") listed as a title.

BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE VICARIUS FILII DEI (or its Italian equivalent; this page in the Annuario is in Italian rather than Latin).

The closest it comes is Vicario di Gesu Cristo ("Vicar of Jesus Christ"). In Latin, that would be Vicarius Jesu Christi. So what does Vicarius Jesu Christi add up to?

Let’s see. . . .

VICARIVS IESV CHRISTI = VI (6) + C (100) + IV (4) + I (1) + V (5) + C (100) + I (1) + I (1) = 218

So there you have it: The number of the pope’s main, official title (the one in big bold print in the Annuario) is 218. (Unless you want to count IV as I + V, in which case it would be 220).

Not so scary after all, huh?

Other Patriarchs In The West?

ED PETERS HAS SOME FUTHER THOUGHTS ON THE POPE DROPPING THE TITLE "PATRIARCH OF THE WEST."

In particular, he wonders whether the move will lead over time to other western patriarchates.

THAT’S AN IDEA THAT WAS FLOATED A WHILE AGO BY PRE-16 HIMSELF.

(Keep reading past the asterisks.)

BUT THERE’S ALSO REASON TO THINK THAT PRE-16 LATER REJECTED THE IDEA.

That doesn’t mean that Ed isn’t right, though. Regardless of what B16 thought when he was dropping the title, the fact of its dropping might in time lead to the development of new patriarchates in the West.

Left-Handedness: Not Another Lifestyle Choice

Lefthand_2

Ever wondered about the origins of the left-handed among us? Scientists still do.

"Can openers, scissors and spiral-bound notebooks discriminate against lefties. Despite such challenges, 10 to 12 percent of the human population has historically preferred the left hand.

"Why doesn’t the number ever waiver? Nobody knows for sure, but new research supports a body of evidence that suggests genetics have a hand in it all.

GET THE STORY.

"[N]ew research supports a body of evidence that suggests genetics have a hand in it all."

Now there’s a relief. Here I was, afraid that left-handedness was just another lifestyle choice. My left-handed grandfather can now rest in peace, and my left-handed sister can now rest easy, with the knowledge that they likely were born that way. Will science never cease to amaze us?

Snarkiness aside, the article is an interesting overview of the history of the southpaw.

Patriarch Of The West

There’s been a lot of head-scratching over B16’s decision to remove the title "Patriarch of the West" from his official roster of titles.

The change was made quietly, without any public announcement, by deleting the title from the official list in the Annuario Pontificio ("Pontifical Yearbook") for 2006.

The folks noticed it, called the Vatican to ask if it was a typo, and they were told no, it wasn’t. The pope said to remove it.

There were also comments made that suggested it was removed for ecumenical reasons–as a stimulus to dialogue with the East, where the other patriarchs are.

This struck many as bizarre, since if anything Eastern non-Catholics might be offended by the dropping of the title, as it could appear to be a power-grab by the pope, claiming jurisdiction over their patriarchs by refusing to acknowledge himself as a patriarch.

So the controversy escalated, the Catholic press went nuts with speculation, and

NOW WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF THE DROPPING OF THE TITLE.

It’s put out by the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity–which ain’t surprising since they’d be the ones who’d have to try to dialogue with honked-off Eastern non-Catholics in the wake of the drop.

I’ve got a suspicion, though, that the communique was either written in part or in whole by B16 himself. It’s got a tone in it in some passages that says "pope" to me rather than "PCPCU underling." However that may be, the issue is sensitive enough that B16 certainly signed off on the thing.

As one would expect, it downplays the ecumenical relations aspect of the change, though it still holds that out to some degree.

It’s interesting that the Vatican was caught off guard with this one. They thought they could make the change without any fanfare, and then events spiralled out of control, causing an the ecumenical equivalent of a diplomatic incident.

Whether dropping the title was a mistake or not, I don’t know. The reasons that are cited for dropping the title could be entirely good ones that will produce long-term good, even if there is an initial, negative adjustment reaction.

Time will tell.

So Technically This Is An Insect. . . .

SixleggedlambWord has arrived of the birth of a six-legged lamb in Belgium.

EXCERPT:

The report said Maurice Peeters, a Belgian farmer, noticed there was something different about the lamb born on his ranch over the weekend.

"The vet immediately put his hand on it, and asked me if I’d seen it," Peeters told reporters who visited his home. "I said I’d seen it and I said I’d seen it has way too many legs."

GET THE STORY.

(Just kidding about that insect thing.)

The Italian Fashion Industry Gets Religion!

Alquds_jeansNot ours. Not the traditional Italian one. But religion, nevertheless.

An Italian clothing company has now designed jeans specially designed for Muslims.

This is NOT a joke. It’s real.

The jeans are designed to make Muslims more comfortable when doing their daily prayers.

In a flash of inter-religious sensitivity, the company has named the line "al-Quds" jeans, which in Arabic means "Jerusalem" jeans.

That’s sure to please Hamas and the PLO.

It’ll probably be a bit less popular with our Jewish friends.

It’s also weird because, if the jeans are meant to make Muslims more comfortable when they pray and you want to name them after a city then you’d think the designer would want to name them after the city toward which Muslims pray: Mecca.

In that case they ought to be called "al-Makkah" jeans.

Oops!

Maybe naming jeans after someone’s main holy city would be religiously insensitive or something . . . even a provocation and a desecration.

Now why is my Spidey sense for double standards tingling?

GET THE STORY.

Y’know, I have this horrible feeling that Ann Coulter is going suggest an advertising slogan along the lines of "Al-Quds! The perfect jeans to go with your new suicide belt!"

But that would be wrong. For all the obvious reasons.