Last Week's Show (August 4, 2005)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW (REAL AUDIO).

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW (MP3–YEE-HAW!!!).

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Is there such a person as Lillith? Are there female demons and angels?
  • Has the Vatican mandated that we all stand after Communion until everyone has received?
  • How can God is all good, why does he allow us to suffer forever in hell?
  • Where are Scriptural bases for the enthronement of the Sacred Heart?
  • How to respond to someone who says that you won’t get along with someone based on his astrological sign?
  • Has Jimmy ever heard of Fr. Hempsch and "healing the family tree"?
  • If all come to the Father through Jesus, where does that leave those before the time of Christ and those who have never heard of Jesus?
  • A brief follow-up on earlier astrology question.
  • Can the souls in purgatory pray for us?
  • What were the highlights of Pope John VIII’s reign?
  • How do the 95 Theses square with Vatican II? Would Vatican II have prevented the Protestant Reformation?
  • How much of a "hassle" will it be for the caller’s husband to get an annulment?

Last Week’s Show (August 4, 2005)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW (REAL AUDIO).

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW (MP3–YEE-HAW!!!).

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Is there such a person as Lillith? Are there female demons and angels?
  • Has the Vatican mandated that we all stand after Communion until everyone has received?
  • How can God is all good, why does he allow us to suffer forever in hell?
  • Where are Scriptural bases for the enthronement of the Sacred Heart?
  • How to respond to someone who says that you won’t get along with someone based on his astrological sign?
  • Has Jimmy ever heard of Fr. Hempsch and "healing the family tree"?
  • If all come to the Father through Jesus, where does that leave those before the time of Christ and those who have never heard of Jesus?
  • A brief follow-up on earlier astrology question.
  • Can the souls in purgatory pray for us?
  • What were the highlights of Pope John VIII’s reign?
  • How do the 95 Theses square with Vatican II? Would Vatican II have prevented the Protestant Reformation?
  • How much of a "hassle" will it be for the caller’s husband to get an annulment?

Planned Parenthood's Caped Assassin

Screwtape must be getting a little worried that the diabolical activity at work in our nation’s largest abortuary, Planned Parenthood, is becoming more and more apparent to the casual observer. Planned Parenthood in San Francisco recently unveiled a "superheroine" named "Dianisis" (anyone remember their Greco-Roman mythology?) whose mission is to rid the world of chastity advocates and anti-abortion demonstrators.

EXCERPT:

"The eight-minute [animated video] ‘A Superhero for Choice,’ posted on the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate website, has a bespectacled black woman in San Francisco morphing into a red-suited flying enforcer, bent on making the world safe for the organization’s values.

"Viewers see three teenagers talking with an ugly green-faced man sporting a top hat and bow tie who tries to tell the kids abstinence is the only sure way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. The teen girl rebuts the man, naming several birth-control methods.

"Retorts the little green man: ‘Those are instruments from the devil’s toolbox!’

"The superhero arrives in time to fill a trash can with water and dump the pro-abstinence character into it, slamming the cover down. After the man’s muffled voice eventually dies off, the superhero tosses the teens a ‘safe sex kit,’ reminding the kids: ‘Safe is sexy!’

"The ‘Superhero for Choice,’ dubbed Dianisis, next confronts a group of protesters in front of a Planned Parenthood facility. They, too, are ugly and have green faces, carrying signs that say, ‘Pray for thy sins.’

"The superhero character uses a ‘condom gun’ that catches each protester in a prophylactic bubble, which subsequently explodes. Though she admits the protesters have a First Amendment right to picket, she glories in the fact that people can now visit the Planned Parenthood facility unimpeded."

GET THE STORY.

(WARNING: The second image taken from the cartoon and posted with WorldNet’s story is quite graphic.)

ANOTHER WARNING: Surf through the San Francisco Planned Parenthood site at your own risk. Some of the materials that are marketed for teenagers are unmentionable in polite company.

Married At The Rehersal?

A reader writes:

I have just a quick question about marriage. I was recently married in the Catholic Church (both my wife and I are strong, faithful Catholics). During the rehearsal, the deacon forgot to mention to us to not recite the vows he was saying because it was just a rehearsal. He wanted us to hear them but not recite them. So, we repeated what he said during the rehearsal. My question is this: does this mean that we were married, in the eyes of God, that night instead of the following day during the wedding mass?

No, you were married the following day. Here’s why.

The Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon  1108

§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

§2. The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who [a] is present, [b] asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and [c] receives it in the name of the Church.

The deacon in question may have [a] been present and may have asked you to repeat the vows after him, but since the context was a wedding rehersal he was not [b] genuinely asking for the two of you to manifest matrimonial consent there on the spot, nor did he [c] receive this consent in the name of the Church. Y’all may have gone through all the motions of a wedding, but you were in rehersal mode, not actual performance mode.

Even if the two of you were attempting to exchange matrimonial consent at the time, the deacon had not genuinely asked for it nor did he genuinely receive it. As a result, the Catholic form of marriage was not observed (because of the deacon’s attitude of mind at the time) at this ceremony and so the marriage would be null on defect of form grounds–and that’s assuming that a rehersal ceremony could even be counted as a ceremony to begin with.

The situation is analogous to performing a baptism as part of a stage play. All the right words and actions may be said and done, ane even said and done by people capable of performing and receiving baptism, but without the requisite intent the sacrament is not performed.

In the case of your rehersal ceremony the deacon (at least) lacked the intent needed to do his role as required by canon law. He was acting in the capacity of a wedding reherser, not a wedding officiant. Form was thus not satisfied.

Congrats on your recent marriage, though!

Disposing Of Sacramentals

A reader writes:

  What is the proper way to dispose of ‘worn’ or broken sacramentals?

There is nothing in canon law on this, however the following represents the relevant pious custom:

  1. If the object has been blessed, either burn it or bury it (depending on whether it is significantly flammable).
  2. If the object has not been blessed, simply throw it away.

Revenants

Earlier we had a post on zombies.

As you may know, zombies are part of Haitian folklore. The term became popular in the U.S. following the release of the 1932 film White Zombie–starring our old friend Bela Lugosi!

This wasn’t the first time that the idea of zombies had appeared in western thought, though. The idea of reanimated bodies coming out of their graves and stalking the living had already been thunk up in the Middle Ages, when they were called "revenants" (Latin, "the returned," more or less).

Folks back then had their own ideas about how to deal with the revenant threat, which might come in handy in case of an actual zombie uprising.

GET THE STORY.

(NOTE: To the extent that there is any basis for these European legends, my guess is that they’re based on people who were buried when they weren’t actually dead yet–not an unknown occurrence in the old days–who then revived temporarily in a disoriented state, poor souls.)

Theology Of The Living Dead

A reader writes:

I watched ‘Land of the Dead’ on Friday night, and on the way home had some thoughts about zombies.

Do zombies have souls? The most obvious theological position for us to take with zombies seems to be that they are the bodies of humans reanimated by some principle other than the [separated at death] soul. Of course, we can’t prove this conclusively, but it’s convenient for us to assume they lack souls because it makes it easy, ethically, for us to kill them.

The problem we have is figuring out what a zombie actually is. There may be some real-life basis to the zombie legend. There are claims that certain psychoactive compounds or mental illnesses may be at the basis of it.

SEE INFO HERE.

On the other hand, zombies are extensively treated in fiction, where numerous causes are used to explain them.

AGAIN, INFO HERE.

Basically, though, it seems that the possible natures of zombies can be grouped into just a few categories:

  1. Zombies are human beings who have ordinary human souls (either under the influence of drugs, illness, or reanimation following death),
  2. Zombies are living bodies being animated by non-human rational souls (like I don’t know what),
  3. Zombies are living bodies being animated by non-human, non-rational souls (like non-human animals),
  4. Zombies are non-living bodies being animated in a way other than the way souls normally animate bodies some kind (e.g., long distance electrodes shot into the pineal and pituitary gland of the recently dead).

Which of these explanations is the correct one in the case of a particular zombie or zombie invasion that you may be facing is crucial for making the correct moral response. The basic divide is between options 1 & 2 on the one hand and optiosn 3 & 4 on the other.

If (1) is the case then they are humans and so have to be treated as such (see below).

If (2) is the case then their status is ambiguous enough that one should err on the side of treating them as humans. They may not have a human soul, but they do have a rational soul and until we learn otherwise we must treat rational souls (e.g., the kind aliens have) as having rights equivalent to ours. (Note well: For this option to occur it isn’t sufficient that a rational soul animate the body in a merely temporary or qualified fashion. It would have to have to animate the body the same way souls normally animate bodies. If it is a spirit merely telekinetically controlling the body without becoming its animating force so that it becomes a living body then option (4) is triggered.)

If (3) is the case then zombies can be treated as animals (see below).

If (4) is the case then zombies can be treated as robots (see below).

Given the assumption that they don’t have souls, then there’d be no problem with "killing" them.

True. Meaning: if options (4) is the case then we can kill them with no problem. Lock and load.

If, on the other hand, we assumed charitably that they did have souls, we’d be obliged to at least attempt to find other means to deal with them.

Not necessarily. They might have non-rational souls (option 3), in which case they could be treated as animals. While one would not want to be unnecessarily cruel to a zombie any more than one would want to be unnecessarily cruel to an animal, this would not preclude killing them. When faced with an animal attack or a zombie attack, use of lethal force would clearly be warranted.

Unless, of course, we take into account a seemingly implacable hostility to living humans. It could be argued that our legitimate concerns for self-defence as individuals or as a society could justify killing zombies.

Bingo! Their implacable hostility toward our race makes the filmland version of the zombie a legitimate subject of self-defense killing, even if options (1) or (2) are the case in a particular instance.

The problem would be to house zombies in such a way as to ensure the safety of the general population. Something like a maximum security prison.

I’m thinking that this proposal is ill-advised and would be likely to result in future zombie attacks. If there were some hope of curing the zombie–as might be the case in option (1)–then we would want to do all we could for them, including humanely housing (institutionalizing) the zombie population, but if we are talking a typical, incurable brain-munching zombie then, well, sticking them in prison is the stuff that sequels are made of.

It’d be more merciful to them and safer for us to simply exterminate them if zombie movies are any indication.

There are other problems than physical restraint to consider, given that their sustenance seems to be human flesh. Obviously we couldn’t provide that … or could we? If organ donation is allowable, would people be able to "donate" their bodies to feeding zombies, if all other attempts to find alternated food sources failed? There are practical problems with this: if there are a lot of zombies, it would be hard to find sufficient donors (if you can find any donors at all).

Well, if zombies were able only to eat human flesh (why this would be, I couldn’t say, but let’s go with it per suppositum) then it would be theoretically possible to donate non-vital human flesh (i.e., organs that you don’t require to live or the flesh of recently deceased humans) but this would seem to be ill-advised for several reasons, not least among them allowing zombies to survive. It would be analogous using human material to deliberately culture a virus that might one day burst forth to kill again.

What if someone is bitten by a zombie? People who are bitten die and become zombies themselves.

In some zombie stories, yes.

In Land of the Dead this frequently meant that they either committed suicide [to avoid becoming a zombie] or were killed by their friends. Obviously in Catholic theology we couldn’t allow this,

Correct. You can’t kill a person (or yourself) to keep them from becoming a zombie. There is another solution, however . . .

and we would be obliged to provide palliative care for bitten individuals to the best of our ability up to the point of death, and then immediately take measures to prevent zombification, i.e. destroy the brain.

Bingo. Wait until the person is either no longer alive and prevent their transformation or, failing that, kill them as soon as they have become a zombie and are now an enemy of mankind.

Incidentally, the same reasoning as above applies to vampires and other forms of undead.

If you’re interested in learning more about the real-world implications of a zombie attack, you might want to

GET THE BOOK "THE ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GUIDE: COMPLETE PROTECTION FROM THE UNDEAD"

though I haven’t read it myself.

You might also want to

GET MY FAVORITE ZOMBIE FILM, "I WAS A ZOMBIE FOR THE F.B.I.", WHICH IS FINALLY BEING RELEASED ON DVD! YEE-HAW!!!