Three Days To Never: The Interview

Threedaystonever_1

Tim Powers’ new novel,
Three Days To Never
(3DTN), is a supernatural thriller about spies,
magic, science, religion, and the secret history of the 20th
century. Set in 1987 during that year’s famed three-day New Age “Harmonic
Convergence,” the story involves Albert Einstein, Charlie Chaplin,
Israeli intelligence, remote viewers, the Qabbalah, the nature of time,
identity, and free will–and an unsuspecting English teacher from San
Bernardino and his young daughter.

The author has graciously consented
to give JimmyAkin.Org an exclusive interview about his new book.

* * *

JA.O: Authors usually dread the
question “Where do you get your ideas?” so I won’t ask that, but
I’d like to ask about the starting point for 3DTN. Where did the germ
of this novel come from? What was the first thing that you decided about
it? Did you want to write about a specific theme, a specific moment,
a specific character, a specific concept?

Tim Powers: Actually
it all started simply by me being curious about why Einstein’s hair
is white in all photographs after 1928. Biographies note that he had
something like a heart attack at that time, in the Swiss Alps, but I
was in my writer-paranoid mode, so I wasn’t buying the heart-attack
story.

      I
suppose anybody’s biography would yield the sort of clues I look for
to base a story on — I bet I could find them in a biography of Louisa
May Alcott, or Beatrix Potter! — but I was pleased to find that Einstein’s
life was particularly full of odd bits. He really did devote years to
working on some kind of "maschinchen," little machine, which
apparently in real life came to nothing, and he did go to a séance
with Charlie Chaplin, and he did leave California forever on the day
of the big Long Beach earthquake, for instance.

      I
always simply note lots of interesting bits and then try to figure out
what sort of story they appear to be part of — as opposed to having
a story in mind in advance and then looking for substantiation for it.
And so when I found that Einstein was devoted to the state of Israel,
for instance, and donated lots of his papers to a university there,
I just noted that Israel would probably figure in the story. That led
me to the Qabbalah and the Mossad, and then they led me on to lots of
other colorful stuff.

* * *

I know that your stories
are heavily researched. How did you go about researching this one?

      Well,
I read a good dozen biographies of Einstein! Underlining and cross-referencing
and making customized indexes on the flyleaves! (I always wind up wrecking
my research books.) And I read heaps too on Qabbalah, and the history
of Israel, and Charlie Chaplin, and old Hollywood, as the Einstein biographies
pointed toward these things.

      And
since the story’s action was mostly taking place within an hour’s drive
of where I live, my wife and I were able (as usually we’re not) to go
to the places I was writing about, and take pictures and wander around
and make notes. Since I usually can’t go to the places I set my stories
in, I insist that it’s not necessary — but just between you and me,
it is a help!

* * *

3DTN involves
the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad. How did you go about researching
them, and how close are the intelligence methods shown in the story
to the ones the Mossad used in the 1980s? Are you at liberty to tell
us or would you have to kill me and my blog readers if you said?

      The
actual Mossad is more efficient than the fictional agents I put in the
book — but moderately inefficient characters are more useful in fiction
and more interesting, I think, to read about. But the background and
methods I give them are accurate for the 1980s, assuming my research
books were accurate. I read Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of Deception
, and Gordon Thomas’s Gideon’s Spies, and Israel’s Secret
Wars
by Black and Morris, and several more. Taken altogether they
probably gave me a plausible picture of the Mossad in the ’80s, and
plausibility is more crucial than strict accuracy. (And as you note,
precise accuracy in espionage matters might be dangerous!)

* * *

When I read your stories,
I’m often surprised to find out that things I thought you made up
actually came from real history. For example, in 3DTN there is an occult
group with ties to the Nazi Regime that I thought you likely made up
(though we know the Nazis were interested in the occult). There is also
a long-lost Charlie Chaplin film that I suspected was an invention of
yours. Yet when I checked online, I found both of these were real. Are
there other things buried in the novel that the reader might be surprised
to find came from history?

      Actually
a whole lot of it is real stuff — Einstein’s maschinchen for measuring
faint voltages, his pal who assassinated the Austrian premier in 1916,
the mid-movie interruption of the first screening of Chaplin’s City
Lights,
the "kidnap" and ransom of Chaplin’s dead body,
for instances. This is a result of me getting my story almost ready-made
by reading a whole lot of research stuff and noting the intriguing bits,
which I then only have to fit together into a plot. It’s much easier
to just find all this than to make it up!

* * *

One of the things that I
find fascinating about your work is the way that you mix real life with
fantasy. Like many of your novels, 3DTN is set in modern times. This
is different than many fantasy novels, which are set in either the Middle
Ages or an imaginary period that is meant to be like the Middle Ages.
Personally, except in the case of someone like Tolkien, I often find
those stories coming across as flat or artificial. Is there a specific
reason why you weave magic around modern settings instead of going with
the traditional "sword and sorcery" type of fantasy? Is it
just a personal preference or do you think there are advantages to writing
magical tales set in the present day?

      Well,
I want to trick my readers into believing, while they’re reading the
book at least,  that all this stuff is really happening, to real
people. If I set it in that default-medieval world, with wizards and
Dark Lords, readers would probably think, "Oh, an imaginary story!"
and I don’t want them noticing that it is, in fact, imaginary.
So I put the magical stuff in alongside TVs and freeways and Marlboros,
and hope that when the magical business starts up, it will seem to be
as genuine as … you know,  the internet and streetlights and
Big Macs.

      Ideally
my readers will develop a bit of reflexive mistrust of apparent, mundane
reality! You really don’t have to nudge readers very hard to elicit
this. People say things like, "I’m not scared of ghosts, I’m scared
of urban gangs and nuclear war," but if they’re all alone in a
house at night, and they hear a scraping sound down the hall, they don’t
think it’s an urban gang member; for at least a moment or two they
know
it’s a ghost.

* * *

Elements of your own life
are often mixed into your stories. Your characters often live in the
same town that you do, and incidents in the stories are often modeled
on things that happened to you. For example, in your story
“The Bible Repairman,” you have a character who accidentally set
afire a Jehovah’s Witness Bible, just as you once did. Can you tell
us some elements of your own life that found their way into 3DTN?

      I
think most writers use their own lives as the basic kit for their protagonists,
to be altered as plot might require. It’s easier! You know the (ideally
mildly interesting) details of your own life pretty thoroughly, and
so a protagonist based on yourself is going to have a history, and tastes,
and even such flaws as you might be aware of having.

      I
don’t have a daughter, and my wife fortunately is still alive! But Marrity’s
house is our house, and his furniture and books and cats and pickup
truck are all ours. (Our pickup truck was a lot newer when he had it
in ’87 than it is now.) And I quit drinking some years ago, which I
think might be a wise course for Marrity.

* * *

Last year you visited Israel
for a science fiction convention. Visiting Israel was a very powerful
experience for me, and I wonder how it affected you. What did you think
about your trip and did getting to go there influence 3DTN in any way?

      Unfortunately
my wife and I went to Israel after I had finished the book! I
did manage to shove a few first-hand details about Tel Aviv into the
book, at least. And the real-life Israel didn’t contradict the Israel
I had imagined — I expected it to be a wonderful place, with admirable
people, and it was certainly that.

      And
we did get to Jerusalem, several times! As Catholics, we found that
was kind of comprehension overload — the realization that God walked
right here, and according to tradition touched this particular stone,
and died right here, is just disorienting. You only begin to appreciate
it later, in pieces.

      We
definitely want to go back. Ideally we’d go every year, with the tax
excuse of attending the convention!

* * *

Your previous novel,
Declare, had significant Catholic themes in it, while 3DTN has significant
Jewish themes. Specifically, it has a magical system related to the
Qabbalah of Jewish mysticism. Why did you decide to go that way this
time? It’s not just that you’re a huge Madonna fan or something is
it?

Well, no. What I generally do in my books, once I’ve got a situation
figured out, is look for the supernatural tradition most closely associated
with it — so that with pirates in the Caribbean I used voodoo [in the novel On Stranger Tides–ja], and
with Arabs I used genies [in the novel Declare–ja].   Declare was fun, in that one of the
historical characters’ uneasy fascination with Catholicism gave me an
excuse to present Catholicism as true. In this new book, I guess I present
Judaism as true! That Mossad character is a fairly orthodox Jew, and
isn’t comfortable using Qabbalah.

      And
Judaism isn’t alien to Catholics, of course — I always figure that
if Catholicism were somehow, per impossibile, proved wrong, I’d
jump straight into Judaism.

* * *

One of the ways that you
ground your stories in real life is by weaving science and magic closely
together. It’s not uncommon in your stories to have quantum mechanical
explanations for magic, or ghosts explained as a partly electrical phenomena,
or devices that are part technology and part enchantment. Depending
on how it’s handled, I could see this either helping or hurting a
story. What have you found to be the benefits and
risks of closely juxtaposing science and magic?

      One
way it helps — I hope! — in soliciting reader credulity is that it
shows magic impinging on, participating in, reality as we know it. After
all, if you can see a thing, then it’s reflecting light, and so it must
have some physical properties! And I like to give magical phenomena
a quantum or Newtonian or relativistic structure, just because those
have internal consistency and I hope my magical stuff will therefore
have a plausible consistency. I don’t want readers to think that I’m
free to make up any old magical effects at all.

      The
risk of this, of course, is that you’ll make magic into just another
technology — pentagrams are effective up to such-and-such amount of
stress, the effectiveness of magic spells diminishes as the square of
the distance — you risk losing the numinous, vertiginous qaulity which
is really the whole point of magic. Real magic should be as scary as
an earthquake, even if it’s "good" magic.

* * *

H. P. Lovecraft felt strongly
that a weird fiction story should be thoroughly grounded in reality
and contain only a single supernatural element—the
“wonder” at the heart of the story. Your approach is different:
You strongly ground your stories in the real world but you weave in
multiple supernatural elements. It’s like there is a whole magical
subtext bubbling just under the surface of daily life. Do you think
Lovecraft was too conservative about how much of the supernatural readers
can accept or are there special challenges to pulling off
the kind of thing that you do?

      Well
I suppose I’d claim that I’m only introducing one magical element, but
that it’s got lots of apparently-unconnected side effects! — but that
would probably be more glib than true.

      Yes,
I think Lovecraft was too conservative. The thing we want to show the
reader is that there’s a whole world of unsuspected stuff going on —
when Leeuwenhoek first looked into his microscope, he didn’t see just
one weird new creature, but dozens of them! The unsuspected world will
have its internal consistencies, its own possibilities and impossibilities,
but it’s gonna be intricate.

* * *

Albert Einstein figures
prominently in 3DTN and you go beyond the known facts of his life in
working him into the story’s background. Einstein is such an iconic
figure that many authors have felt the liberty to fictionalize his life
in books and movies, but just recently we’ve had a great deal of criticism
directed toward Dan Brown for his rewriting the facts of Jesus’ life
in
The Da Vinci Code, and Jesus is
an even more iconic figure. A lot of people took offense at what Brown
did, but a lot don’t take offense at a fictional version of Einstein’s
life. How do you explain this and, in your view, how much liberty should
authors have when fictionalizing the lives of historical figures?

      I
think the main thing is to base your characterization on what’s known
of the real historical figure — don’t have him do things he never would
have done. You can invent lots of unrecorded motivations for him, but
he should react to those in character.

      I
like to think I presented Einstein as an admirable character, which
he appears mostly to have been. I’ve portrayed some historical bad guys
somewhat sympathetically — Bugsy Siegel, for example [in the novel Last Call–ja] — but I don’t
think readers mind that as much as going the other way, and portraying
revered figures as villains. Brown portrayed Jesus as a fairly vague
nonentity, but at least he didn’t make Him a bad guy!

* * *

Despite the emphasis on
reality, your stories often have striking elements of whimsy. For example,
some of your characters have joke names—and joke names based on ecclesiastical
Latin at that! In a couple of your novels there was a character named
“Neal Obstadt”
(nihil obstat;
“nothing obstructs”) and in 3DTN there’s a woman going by the
name “Libra Nosamalo”
(libera nos a malo;
“deliver us from evil”). Is there a risk of harming suspension of
disbelief here or do you think that the payoff in humor is enough for
those who’ll get the joke?

      Well,
I think there is a risk of harming suspension of disbelief, yes. I shouldn’t
do it! Anything that reminds the reader that he’s just sitting in a chair
holding a stack of papers all glued together at one edge, and not in
the presence of the book’s characters, is a mistake, even if it gets
a laugh.

      It
could be worse! After all, Neal Obstadt may have picked that name because
of its associations, and Libra Nosamalo explains that her parents had
an odd sense of humor.

      But
the best sort of humor in a book is things that arise naturally from
the action, things a reader can laugh at without stepping outside the
story!

* * *

Compared to many contemporary
novels, yours are fairly clean. While they’re meant for adults, they
aren’t loaded up with sex scenes and they don’t celebrate sin. There
are cuss words and your characters definitely have things they’d need
to talk about in confession, but on a deeper level your books presuppose
a moral structure to the universe. As a Catholic, how do you find the
balance between showing the reality of man’s fallen condition and
glorifying evil the way we commonly see in the media?

      Well,
while I show people doing bad things — even show the atractiveness
of doing bad things! — I like to think I show too that they work out
badly, and that the characters would have been way better off not having
done those things. Often a character wants to do the difficult right
thing but keep a couple of pet sins too — just little ones, they don’t
eat a lot or make much noise! And I hope I show that there’s bad consequences
of that. I always remember Lewis’s statement in The Great Divorce,
something like, "If we choose Heaven we will not be able to keep
even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell."

      This
is really more craft than morality — given, I suppose, my own beliefs.
Sex-scenes, for example, I think are generally just bad craft. They
usually feel to me like clumsy gear-changes, jolting the reader abruptly
from one sort of fiction into another. Not smooth carpentry!

* * *

J. R. R. Tolkien’s works
envision a world that differs from ours in a number of respects. Some
things are “okay” in his world that would not be okay in ours (e.g.,
Gandalf’s use of magic). C. S. Lewis’s

Chronicles of Narnia are similar. When reading or watching science
fiction and fantasy, I often imagine that I’m peeking in on a universe
where God established different rules (which is certainly his right),
but many people feel that there are limits to what authors should portray
in this regard. A considerable number of Christians feel that J. K.
Rowling crossed the line in her

Harry Potter series and created a world that could tempt real-world
children toward the occult. In your novels I’ve noticed that the more
people chase after magic, the more they get burned by it. Where do you
come down on this topic? Are there limits to how different an author
should make the world he envisions? Does it depend on the audience?
What are the boundaries?

      I
make magic a damaging thing for characters to mess with just because
that feels logical and convincing to me. I’d be writing about a fake
magic — fake to me, anyway — if I made it benevolent or even neutral.

      But
I wouldn’t advise a writer who sees magic as a nice thing to
try to change the way he deals with it! I don’t think you can fake these
things. I’ve known writers who try in their stories to endorse moral
correctnesses they don’t actually care about, or which they even feel
to be invalid, just to make their work more palatable to perceived readers’
tastes, and it never works. Your fiction is going to reflect what you
actually believe and don’t believe, and it’d be a mistake for Rowling,
for example, to vilify magic just because people think it ought to be
vilified. They may be right and she may be wrong, but it’s her eyes
we’re looking through when we experience the story.

      Joan
Didion said that "art is hostile to ideology." Fiction
can
be educational and beneficial and improving, but that’s not
one of its jobs!

* * *

Your stories often begin
after the death of an important character—frequently a female character whose
death sets the plot in motion. Is this a consequence of writing stories
that often involve ghosts, is it just a good place to begin stories,
or is it a personal trademark?

      I
guess it’s just a personal quirk! I really wasn’t aware of it till you
pointed it out. I guess it’s a natural way to get into a dramatic situation
— the reader learns about this deleted person from seeing how the other
characters react to her (generally her) sudden absence, and when a mystery
becomes evident she’s not there to explain it, and they’ve got to try
to reconstruct what she secretly knew or what she was actually up to.

      And
yes, in stories of mine her ghost is likely to show up and have some
comments!

* * *

Your stories often end with
the creation of new families by characters who aren’t initially part
of the same family. Is this a crypto pro-family statement that you’re
trying to get across, does it play a specific
dramatic function, or is it something that you just find interesting?

      I
suppose it plays a dramatic function, in that it’s putting together
a new orderliness, with optimistic promise, out of the ruins of what
had been there before the story’s catastrophes started. Like, "Things
won’t be the same, but they’ll be nice in a different way." And
I generally get fond of my characters, and I want them to have nice
lives after the book’s spotlight isn’t on them anymore!

* * *

Your previous novel,
Declare, came out in 2001 and 3DTN has come out in 2006. You’re
not going to make us wait until 2011 for another Tim Powers novel are
you?

      I
hope not! No, no, definitely not. This one was slowed down by me teaching
two high school classes and one or two college classes every semester,
and I’m going to cut back on that, I swear.

* * *

ORDER THREE DAYS TO NEVER–OR OTHER WORKS BY TIM POWERS–FROM JIMMY AKIN’S STORE.

SDG who?

Yes, the red name above isn’t Jimmy, Michelle, or Tim J. In a rare foray from guest-blogging limbo, I’ve returned to… share some pictures from my summer vacation.

Wait! Come back! Don’t worry, I’m not talking about a slide show of My Trip to the Grand Canyon or anything like that. It’s just that last week, vacationing in North Carolina, I contributed an entry to a sand sculpture contest — and won — and, given the subject matter, I thought Jimmy’s readers might like to see the results.


See more pictures.

Granted, on this particular blog, graced as it is from time to time with Tim J’s stunning artwork, my summer-day diversion isn’t as impressive as it might somewhere else, but still, I’m pretty pleased with the results.

This was my first complete crucifixion sculpture; last year I made a couple of unfinished studies that gave me the confidence to tackle this project in spite of having only 75 minutes to do it in before the contest judging.

(The conditions weren’t ideal… The tide was high and rising; the time to sculpt sand is when the tide is receding, which allows the best access to wet sand. For awhile I wasn’t even going to enter the contest, but eventually I decided to give it a try, and was pleasantly surprised at how well the relatively dry sand above the tide line handled.)

In previous years, I’ve done sharks, crocodiles, mermaids and sea serpents.

Well, that’s all I have to say about that, so… see you next summer!

Praying For Earthly Blessings

A reader writes:

My question for you is something that struck me as I was walking down the street today; I’m relatively new to Christianity, so it’s a pretty basic question.  Essentially it’s this:  why do we bother to pray to God for earthly blessings, i.e. curing illness, ending abortions, etc?  Firstly, God as an omniscient being already knows our general wishes as humans to end illness etc, and he even knows our specific wishes, i.e. ‘please cure Grandma Ruth’s cancer,’ so the goal cannot be to inform God of our desire.  Secondly, I don’t see how being plaintive about our problems would motivate God to do anything to help us–after all, there’s nothing we have to offer Him.  Finally, it might not be in our interest to end our sufferings, for out of suffering often comes the greatest growth of faith.

I can understand that the purpose of prayer is to bring us closer to God;  as we meditate on Him we grow closer to Him.  But why do we pray for earthly blessings?  I just don’t get it.

While this question is basic in the sense that it applies to one of the most basic elements of religious life–prayer–it is actually a very sophisticated on that many people wonder about, and from that perspective, it is very high-end!

What you’ve written also contains the seed of the answer: drawing closer to God.

The basic reason that God wants us to pray to him is that doing so builds virtue. In fact, prayer builds several virtues, and this applies even when we are praying for the needs of this life.

Let’s take an obvious example first: Praying for an end to abortion. This is indeed an earthly good. But whose good is it? Cui bono? Who benefits? First and foremost, the babies who would be aborted if the horrible practice isn’t ended. By praying for an end to abortion we are led to recognize the needs of these babies (their need to live!) and thus praying for and end to abortion ends up drawing us out of ourselves and causing us to care for others–even others we will never meet. It builds the virtues of love and compassion in us.

And this does not stop with the babies, for anyone who prays regularly about pro-life matters eventually ends up praying for the mothers who have abortions, the fathers who push them into it, the doctors and nurses who perform them, the legislators and Supreme Court justices who enable the practice, the American public who needs to become more strongly against it, and the conversion of the people in evil organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

All of this helps us grow in love and charity and it helps us to re-orient our values to recognize what is and is not important as we wrestle with this issue in prayer and think through it.

We thus come to more closely model our values to God’s values as we pray about the issue and its different aspects.

Prayer also helps motivate us to take practical steps to help others. Pro-lifers who pray regularly for and end to abortion–because of their increased care and concern that is grown by prayer–are more likely to take practical steps to help end the problem and to help blunt its deadly force in the meantime (volunteering at pregnancy centers, donating to pro-life charities, supporting pro-life legislation, voting for pro-life politicians). Certainly, they are more likely to do so than those who never think to pray for unborn babies.

The same is true whenever we pray for someone else–including people who we do know, whether they are living or dead. By praying for them, the Christian community–and the human community–is built up in love. In prayer, we come to mirror the love for others that God has for them.

We also purify our values as we think about what we should pray for, using the intellects God gave us to think about whether something is really a fitting object of prayer or whether it is a selfish desire that we should learn to either subordinate to some other, more pressing concern or even become willing to do without entirely.

Even when we are praying for ourselves and our needs, this happens, and we also learn another virtue: a willingness to trust and depend on God to give us what we truly need and to help us recognize and live without what we don’t.

If a Christian prays for freedom from suffering and that is the best thing for him and God grants it then the Christian, if nothing else, has learned to turn to and depend on God as the ultimate source of goodness. If a removal of the suffering is not in his best interests and God does not grant the prayer–at least immediately (for all suffering is temporary; there will be none of it in heaven)–then the Christian learns the virtue of patience, as well as whatever other virtues may be built up through the suffering.

Prayer has never been about giving God information he didn’t already have. Jesus made that quite clear in Matthew 6. Prayer has always been about more closely modeling ourselves after God by re-orienting our values to become his and thus buliding virtue and being more godly. To encourage us along this path, God has made our obtaining certain blessings conditional on our willingness to ask him for them–and it happens whether the blessing in question is a spiritual or an earthly one. Virtue and a greater sharing in God’s values is built up, regardless.

This is not to say that there are no missteps in prayer. We certain pray for some things that are not in accord with God’s will, that are not good for us, but we learn through time as the process of prayer gradually purifies us and we learn to subordinate our wills and our values to God’s. We always start with where we are–which in the beginning is quite self-centered–but as we pray we are drawn out of ourselves, to respect and love God and the other immortal beings he has created.

All of this is also in accord with our natures as earthly creatures. We instinctively ask for things when we need them, and if God prohibited us from asking for our earthly needs, he would be prohibiting us from acting on our natures.

There is, of course, a natural temptation to view earthly matters are inconsequential in comparison to spiritual ones, and it is quite true that spiritual matters are of transcendant importance compared to earthly ones, but one should not set the two in opposition to each other. God made us as creatures that are both earthly and spritiual. Earthly matters are thus important, too, because God made them essential to human nature. They’re part of his creation and of us in particular.

In fact, since what we do in this life determines our eternal fate–since the flesh is the hinge of salvation, as the saying goes–earthly matters have eternal rammifications, for the virtues we build in this life by learning love and compassion for others will affect the way we are rewarded in heaven.

So here, as in so many areas of Christianity, the truth is paradoxical: The last shall be first, one gains by giving, acknowledging one’s weakness and need for God’s help makes one stronger, and praying for earthly things leads to spiritual growth.

The Catholic Answers Forums . . .

. . . are FINALLY back up.

GO HERE TO LOG ON.

I know this has been an enormous frustration for folks who regularly use the forums, and it has been a HUGE headache for us as well.

Because I’ve gotten a number of e-mails about the problem, I’ve been meaning to do a post about it, letting folks know when the forums would be back up, but I kept getting told that we were on the verge of having them up and I wanted the post to reflect that, but one problem after another intervened and kept pushing the date back a day or so each time, and thus this post is later than I meant it to be.

Sorry about that.

Anyway–since I know a lot of folks are wondering what happened–here’s what did: A mysterious event occurred three weeks ago that wiped out the forums. Period. They were gone. The nature of this event is not entirely clear, but it appears that it likely was a hacker attack on the server where the forums are hosted.

Also (apparently) destroyed were the backups of the forums that were resident there. The most recent backup copy of the forums database that escaped destruction (for reasons I won’t disclose for security reasons) was from April, meaning that this was all we had to use to rebuild with, so even when the forums came up again that means all conversations underway would have to get a 5 month reset. (So basically people will have to restart their conversations from scratch.)

Worse, the people who registered since the last surviving backup–about 4,000 of them–would have to re-register.

Once the forums went down and we learned that it was likely a hacker attack that took them out, we realized that we wouldn’t be able to just put the forums back up the way they were, with no additional security. It would do nobody any good to simply put up the forums the way they were and let the hackers come back and take them down again a week or two later, just as the forum patrons were getting used to having them back.

So we undertook a massive upgrade–a new box for the forums to run off of, a fresh install of the forum software with all the latest security upgrades, additional security provided by our hosting service, a new backup system that will not be vulnerable to the kind of multi-month data loss we suffered this time, various ways I can’t talk about to thwart additional attacks, etc.

And absolutely none of this was in the budget–but we’re making the investment to keep the forums up and secure in the future.

We’re extremely serious about this and have had multiple meetings devising ways to try and ensure that this kind of event never replicates, and the need to take such extensive protection measures has slowed down our ability to get the forums back online.

It’s been a huge headache for our web guys–getting multiple pieces of hardware and software, configured properly, and working together in a new, tighter security environment–integrating what can be salvaged from the old forums, and testing the systems to try and make sure that they’ll work properly and wouldn’t immediately break as soon as we got them back online.

We wish–very strongly–that it hadn’t taken three weeks to accomplish all this, and forum users have our apologies, but we wanted to be very thorough so as to not have an even more frustrating crash as soon as or soon after we went back on line.

Having said that, the forums are back up and functioning so,

CHECK ‘EM OUT.

Incidentally, one note about getting to the forums: Apparently we don’t yet have all the ordinary ways of accessing them smoothed out (that’ll be a top priority), so for now you need to get to them by going to forum(singular) dot catholic dot com, with no Ws up front, like this:

HTTP://FORUM.CATHOLIC.COM.

UPDATE: You can now get back in by going to forums.catholic.com (plural) or from the forums tab on the Catholic.com homepage.

NOTE TO FELLOW BLOGGERS: Many of your readers may be users of the Catholic Answers Forums. Please consider a post letting folks know that they are back up. Thanks!

Spaghetti Strap Tops & Communion

A reader writes:

My mother related an event to me that her friend witnessed.

During the distribution of Eucharist, a young girl about 14 approached to receive. She was wearing a typical teenage dress with spaghetti straps. As she approached the priest, he looked past her and waved her on. Her mother was behind her and said it’s okay, she’s old enough to receive. He didn’t answer, just waved her on again. She moved on without receiving. An older woman who saw what happened, took her shawl and wrapped it around the girls shoulders….the priest then went to where the girl was sitting and gave her communion once her shoulders were covered.

My question is…can he do that? I’m in agreement with dressing appropriately for church. But is it within the scope of the priest’s authority to deny someone Eucharist based on her outfit?

It is very difficult to establish a basis in the law for what the priest did in this case. First, let’s start with a general, hermeneutical canon:

Can. 18 Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

Laws that would restrict the faithful’s right to receive Communion therefore must be interpreted strictly. If there is doubt as to the applicability of a law, the doubt must be read in favor of the free exercise of the right of the faithful.

Now let’s hop forward in the Code:

Can.  843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

This canon is phrased negatively–that is, it says what sacred ministers cannot do. If a person meets the qualifications listed then a pastor cannot deny them the sacraments. Whether the canon is convertible such that a pastor can deny a person who seeks the sacraments at an inappropriate time, who is not properly disposed, or who is prohibited by law is not stated, but it seems clear that the minister can do so.

If the minister were to deny the girl Communion based on anything in this canon, it would have to be the on the grounds that the girl was not properly disposed, since her clothing has nothing to do with what time she is seeking to receive Communion and since there are no laws that expressly prohibit a person from receiving Communion based on the clothing they are wearing.

But there is a problem here. Actually, there are three.

First, the Code says further on:

Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Whatever else it does, this canon lays additional stress on the gravity of reasons that a minister must have for denying Communion to one seeking it (at least during the context of a Mass). The fact that the earlier condition of proper disposition is omitted from this canon is at least suggestive that the minister should not be attempting to judge the dispositions of the communicant. He should not be trying to judge whether the person is displaying sufficient reverence, for example. He should only focus on whether the person is prohibited by law from receiving.

Thus he should be asking questions like, "Is this person baptized?", "Is this person a Catholic?", "Has this person been admitted to Holy Communion?", "Is this person under a penalty like excommunication?"–not "Does this person appear sufficiently reverent?", "Has this person fasted for an hour?", or even "Has this person been to confession?"

This is further undrescored by the following canon:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

You’ll note that the condition needed to deny someone Communion in this canon on grounds of sin is not just that they are in mortal sin or have not been to confession since committing a mortal sin. It is that they are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin," which means a whole bunch of things–not only is the sin mortal (or at least grave), it must be publicly known, they must be continuing to do it (as opposed to having stopped it and just not gone to confession yet), and they must do so after some kind of warning (obstinately).

This indicates that, if a priest knows that a person does not have the proper disposition of being free of unconfessed mortal sins then he cannot deny the person Communion. For example, if he knows that the person recently committed secret sin X and that the person has not been absolved of it because just before Mass the person attempted confession to the priest in question and the priest denied him absolution because he wasn’t actually contrite then the priest still cannot refuse him Communion because the sin was secret (not publicly known and thus not manifest) and thus he is not "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin."

The conjunction of canons 912 and 915 thus suggests that, in the case of the Eucharist, the question of whether a person is properly disposed is to be judged by the communicant and not by the minister. He can deny you Communion if you are prohibited by law from receiving it (e.g., if you are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin) but it is not his job to judge whether you are sufficiently disposed. That determination is your job, not the ministers. (And, after all, do we really want extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion making that determination on our behalf?)

So that’s problem #1: There is a significant case to be made–particularly in light of the strict construction that canon 18 requires–that canon 912 modifies canon 843 in such a way that the minister is not to attempt to judge the proper disposition of a person seeking to receive holy Communion.

But then there’s problem #2: Even if it is within the minister’s purview to judge the proper disposition of a communicant, there are no canons dealing with proper vesture for receiving Communion. There are other laws establishing the proper dispositions for receiving Communion–you must be reverent, you must have fasted for an hour, you must not be conscious of unconfessed mortal sin, etc.–but nowhere does the law list what kind of clothing you are wearing as a requirement for proper disposition.

The absence of any laws dealing with this thus creates a case for saying that a particular kind of vesture is simply not required for proper disposition as the law understands it, and thus–per the struct construction required by canon 18–the minister would not be allowed to bar a person based on their type of vesture (unless, of course, the clothing they were wearing constituted obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin; see below).

But even if this, too, is rejected, there’s still problem #3: What vesture is appropriate for receiving Communion is unambiguously culturally relative. In some cultures–like certain places in Africa–women do not wear tops at all, and the Church does not bar them from Communion on this ground. So one is going to have to judge whether the clothing is considered appropriate according to the local cultural norms, whether one approves of those norms or not (per canon 18’s strict construction).

If the local culture permits 14 year old girls to wear string-tied tops that reveal their shoulders–or strapless wedding dresses that do the same thing–then a minister will not be permitted to deny Holy Communion on that basis.

Now, if the local culture doesn’t allow something–for example, women going completely topless, or men going topless in church, or wearing a Nazi armband, or wearing a shirt that uses the F-word or the S-word or the N-word (things which might be nailable under the obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin requirement)–then the minister (prescinding from problems #1 and #2) refuse Communion, but not if this is what people in the culture are permitted to wear.

Since teenage girls in our culture are commonly permitted to wear string-tied tops that expose their shoulders, it is going to be very difficult to use canon 843–given the three problems here named and the strict construction that must be put on the matter–to deny a girl Communion in our culture on the ground that she is wearing such a shirt.

A minister may not like it–and he may be right to not like it–but it is not easy to find a basis in the law for denying the girl in this case Communion on grounds of strictly constructed improper disposition.

The only other ground I could see is the one in canon 915 regarding obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin, but this is not going to work, either. A teenage girl wearing a dress that reveals her shoulders–or her bellybutton–is simply not gravely sinning by the mere fact of doing so. She may be dressing immodestly, but she is not committing a sin that will send her to hell (if done with adequate knowledge and consent) simply because she shows her shoulders (or bellybutton) in public.

Further, if she were obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin then the priest shouldn’t have given her Communion simply because someone put a shawl over her shoulders. He should have told her to go to confession.

I thus find it very difficult to find an adequate basis in the law for what the priest did in restricting the girl’s exercise of her right to receive Holy Communion.

That is not to say that the Holy See would not be within its rights to develop a dress code for receiving Communion. It might be well advised to do so–or at least to require the national bishops’ conferences to develop their own national dress codes, but this far it has not done so, and one cannot bar people from Communion based on what one wishes the law said.

Canon 18 won’t let you.

Yeah, Okay, Why Not

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Jimmy, you should take this quiz and share your results…

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=44116

I’m generally pretty skeptical of these "Which X Are You?" quizzes, but for once why not. Here’s how I scored:

You scored as Anselm.

Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man’s primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read ‘Cur Deus Homo?’

Anselm

93%

Augustine

87%

Karl Barth

73%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

73%

John Calvin

60%

Charles Finney

53%

Jonathan Edwards

47%

Paul Tillich

40%

Martin Luther

20%

J�rgen Moltmann

13%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

For what it’s worth, I thought this quiz was better than most I’ve seen, though there were a number of ambiguities in the wording of the questions and you had to guess at what the quiz author meant. Also, his assessment of what levels of agreement or disagreement with what proposition and how well that corresponds to which theologians, while pretty good (I am more like Anselm and Augustine theologically than the others), is open to challenge.

The big limitation that the quiz is done in terms of what propositions particular theologians are known for, and it doesn’t doesn’t give an accurate representation of how much you’re like a particular guy based on what you think about a couple of his propositions. Thus I’m actually a lot less like Barth and Schleiermacher than the quiz would indicate. I’d have systematic disagreements with them (meaning: overall disagreements with their systems)–as should be evident by the fact I’m an orthodox Catholic and they were not Catholics–even if there are a couple of their propositions I could find a significant measure of truth in.

Which is a long way of saying: This is why I’m skeptical of such quizzes.

But if it’s recognized as completely unscientific and just in fun . . .

In The Mail

Saints_behaving_badlyI recently received an advance copy of a book called Saints Behvaing Badly by Thomas Craughwell and I’ll offer my thoughts on it soon, after I’ve had a chance to go through it.

The book looks at the human side of saints–the side that is often diminished or dimmed in pious saint stories.

The fact is that the saints were often human, all too human as the phrase goes, and while some might consider it impious to point this out (and while it would be impious to dwell on it obsessively), it also can be inspirational to realize that the saints were indeed imperfect but nevertheless were able to overcome and display heroic virtue.

In that sense, looking at the imperfections of the saints can play a useful and encouraging role for those of us whose salvation is not yet won.

In the meantime,

CHECK OUT THE BOOK.