Diagnosis: Calvary

An Israeli researcher believes that Jesus died not of blood loss, but of a blood clot:

"Professor Benjamin Brenner wrote in The Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that Jesus’ death, traditionally believed to have occurred 3 to 6 hours after crucifixion began, was probably caused by a blood clot that reached his lungs.

"Such pulmonary embolisms, leading to sudden death, can stem from immobilization, multiple trauma and dehydration, said Brenner, a researcher at Rambam Medical Center in Haifa.

"’This fits well with Jesus’ condition and actually was in all likelihood the major cause of death by crucifixion,’ he wrote in the article, based on religious and medical texts."

GET THE STORY.

Given that the Shroud of Turin is not mentioned in the article as the source of study, how can scientists make such a determination that the cause of death was more likely to be blood clot than blood loss when they do not have a body to examine? Unless the researcher was studying blood patterns on the Shroud, believed to be Jesus’ burial clothes, making such a statement as anything more than mere speculation seems rash.

Meet The Pope

… at a papal liturgy.

"The halberds moved forwards and, suddenly, the Pope was before us. He himself made nothing of his entry, but, as one, we swayed towards him. Tears streamed down the cheeks of the Rottweiler nun, and, to my enormous surprise, down my own. Here was the living successor of St. Peter, the guardian of the spirit at the heart of all Rome’s gilded worldly treasures. Here was the Holy Father. When people clapped, I willingly joined in.

"Astounded at my reaction, I expected it to pass. It did not. During the entire lengthy Mass, with its mainly commonplace liturgy and dodgy singing, I remained moved in a way I did not find at all comfortable. I wanted my detachment back, but I couldn’t find it.

"And it did not end there. As it was Corpus Christi, when Mass was over, the Pope, holding aloft the monstrance containing the Blessed Sacrament, came slowly down the steps to get into an open-topped popemobile, a prie-dieu protected by a golden canopy settled on its flat-back. He was very close and looked very serious.

"Then Signora Wild Boar called out his name — ‘Benedetto!’ — and as he turned to acknowledge us, his face lightened and he smiled a smile of delighted sweetness before raising his arm to indicate that the Blessed Sacrament was more worthy of our attention. If Signora Wild Boar had not been quite so bristly, I’d have kissed her."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Ut Unum Sint for the link.)

The great thing about being Catholic is that love properly expressed for human beings leads us to the love of God. Non-Catholic Christians often complain about Catholic devotion to Mary and the saints, and this story of Pope Benedict is a perfect parable of the right understanding of Catholic devotion to Mary and the saints. Our love for fellow Christians, including love for our spiritual father in the faith, does not end with them; it is directed on to God himself and indeed magnifies the glory of God. The saints don’t jealously hoard our love for them. They acknowledge it, are delighted by it, and point us on to God.

SCIENTISTS: Link Between Bonding And Babies!

Scientists are beginning to discover a link between killing fertility and killing sexual desire. Next to be studied: Is there a link between regular watering and the growth of plants?

"Taking the Pill for as little as six months could destroy a woman’s sex drive for ever, say scientists.

"The oral contraceptive dramatically reduces the levels of a hormone responsible for desire and simply stopping taking it fails to reverse the effect, it is feared.

"A survey produced such dramatic results that lead researcher Dr. Irwin Goldstein advised any woman on the Pill who has sexual problems to stop taking it and try another method of birth control.

"’There is a possibility it is imprinting a woman for the rest of her life,’ he said."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Zippy Catholic for the link.)

Hmmm. I wonder if scientists will eventually offer an apology to the Church for the secular world’s scorn of the Church’s age-old teaching on artificial contraception…. After all, fair’s fair. John Paul II apologized for the Church’s handling of the Galileo affair.

Remind me when I can let out that gulp of air I’m holding.

For It Stopped Short…

Unlike Grandfather’s clock, which stopped short never to run again when the old man died, it appears that London’s Big Ben will continue running after a brief rest.

"Big Ben, the landmark London clock renowned for its accuracy and chimes, stopped ticking for 90 minutes, an engineer said Saturday.

"Officials do not know why the 147-year-old clock on the banks of the River Thames stopped at 10:07 p.m. Friday. It resumed keeping time, but stalled again at 10:20 p.m. and remained still for about 90 minutes before starting up again, a spokeswoman for the House of Commons said on condition of anonymity, citing government policy.

"There has been speculation a recent spell of hot weather may have been to blame. Temperatures in London reached 90 Saturday, and forecasters called it England’s hottest day in May since 1953."

GET THE STORY.

By the way, if the musical allusion interests you, GET THE LYRICS. My grandparents occasionally sang this song for me when I was a child and the idea of a clock stopping to mark someone’s death — time standing still in mourning — always fascinated me.

Snoring The Tiber

The story sounds like a tall tale to me — how can a person over the age of reason, and one suffering from senile dementia to boot, be received into the Church without his knowledge or consent? — but this unique conversion story that is purported to be true did make me laugh:

"James died at an advanced age, and was given a full Roman Catholic funeral with the bells and smells. Joseph was deeply upset over the loss of his dear brother and senile dementia, which had already set in, got progressively worse. Joseph often got confused about things, and at some point, possibly after witnessing all the Catholic ceremonial, became convinced he was a Catholic too.

"’Of course I’m a Catholic … my brother was a Catholic and we’re twins … how could I not be a Catholic?’ was his response to anyone who said he was a Protestant. Now, Joseph’s grown-up children were, of course, pleased to hear their father now considered himself a Catholic. The problem was — he hadn’t yet been properly received into the Catholic Church, and wouldn’t even listen when his children suggested he be received — ‘I’ve always been a Catholic,’ he would protest. His health was going rapidly downhill too, and he insisted he must be given a Catholic funeral.

"What was one to do? They had a talk with the local RC priest and they had an idea."

GET THE TALE.

Tales such as this, especially those originating several generations ago and thus unverifiable, make the rounds of Catholic circles. You’d be surprised how many I hear from inquirers who want to know if I can explain the tales’ illogical points (e.g., the reception into the Church of a sleeping man). All one can do is to point out the principles (e.g., informed knowledge and consent is ordinarily necessary for adult reception) and advise the person to enjoy the story as a Catholic tall tale.

Nod to Dappled Things for the link. I especially liked Fr. Tucker’s own tale: "It reminded me of what one of our deacons tells non-Catholic best men at wedding rehearsals: ‘When I sprinkle the rings with holy water, make sure not to get any on you, otherwise you automatically become a Catholic.’ Then he makes sure to get the horrified Protestant wet during the wedding ceremony.")

Nannies For Soggy Bottom, U.S.A.

No doubt the success of the television show Supernanny has inspired other nannies to tell tales about their employers’ foibles. Exhibit A: The director of a Maryland-based nanny agency that provides childcare to The Rich And Powerful in Washington, D.C.:

"In Barbara Kline’s new nonfiction book, White House Nannies, her account of finding nannies for Washington’s rich and pretentious, the parents are as deliciously horrible as you would want them to be. "They call her Bethesda agency and start off by describing how important and busy they are. ‘By the way, Barbara, I run an empire,’ says one. Or they have their chief of staff call: ‘I represent a very prominent family.’ Eventually, after listing all their titles and every advanced degree, they toss in a phrase or two describing their children: ‘eight-year-old brilliant twins, a four-year-old gymnast, and a brand-new baby girl who can already sing on key.’

[…]

"[I]f a dispute arises months after Kline has placed the nanny in the home, the clients are back on the phone demanding someone else: ‘You know, Barbara, if I’m not happy with a watch from Cartier, they take it back and give me a new one.’

"Yes, says Kline, who started White House Nannies 21 years ago, someone actually said this to her.

"She won’t say exactly who."

GET THE STORY.

Moral of the story: Even the temporally omnipotent must watch what they say to their servants. After all, the servants may one day decide to write a book.

(Nod to HMS Blog for the link.)

To Tell The Truth In Fiction

I’ve been reading romance novels for over twenty years now — yes, I started too young — and although I now read more contemporaries, my nostalgic favorites are the historicals I started with. So, the topic of historical accuracy in fiction is of deep interest to me:

"Historical authors Celeste Bradley and Nicole Byrd will be presenting their workshop ‘It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to’ — a debate on the necessity (or not!) of historical accuracy in the romance novel. As one who watches from the sidelines, I won’t be presenting my opinion on the subject here. However, I am deeply interested in learning about your views on the matter.

"How do you feel about historical accuracy in the novels you read?"

GET THE STORY.

My rule of thumb is that if the reader can spot the error, the entire effect of the fictional "world" the author is trying to create evaporates. This can occur even when the error is minor, but is appalling when the error is so huge that it shows a lack of care by the author in performing requisite research. An example of both:

  • When I read Regency historicals — a hot "trend" in the romance novel world right now — I cringe every time a married lady has "Mrs." tacked on to her first name and married surname. The people of the British Regency era were sticklers for manners, indeed the fictional genre owes its start to Jane Austen’s comedies of manners set during the British Regency (ca. 1811-1820), and a woman of that time would never be called Mrs. Anne Smith. In historical usage, "Mrs." is attached to the husband’s full name — in other words, Mrs. Anne Smith should be titled Mrs. John Smith. This is a small error, but an annoying one for a reader who catches it.
  • The most appalling error I ever came across was in a medieval romance that abused the seal of the sacrament of confession not once, but twice in the same novel. Two separate plot points depended upon two different priests violating the sacramental seal. The first time I gritted my teeth and plowed on with the novel because the violation was part of the "back story" (information from before the book opens that must be mentioned for the overall development of a character but doesn’t necessarily affect the present action all that much); the second time, the plot resolution depended on another priest — a bishop, if I remember correctly — violating the sacramental seal. At that point, I was so outraged that the book metaphorically thudded against my wall. That it didn’t do so in actuality was solely because I like my walls more than I did the book.

Frankly, I think if an author is going to take the trouble to write a book, the story should be as historically accurate as her research can make it. If dramatic license must be taken, note should be made of the deliberate inaccuracies in an afterword. To include dramatic license, but to attempt to leave the reader ignorant of it — i.e., "It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to" — only makes the author look ignorant, at best, or careless, at worst, to a knowledgeable reader.

Crime And Punishment

Don’t tell Junior Allen of Georgia that the American courts are soft on criminals. He was recently released from prison after serving nearly three decades. The crime he atoned for? Stealing a $140 television.

"In 1970, Junior Allen went to prison for stealing a $140 TV set from 87-year-old Lessie Johnson in Johnston County [North Carolina].

"Johnson’s family said he roughed her up on his way out. However, nothing about an assault came up at trial nor was Allen ever charged with one.

"Allen is on his way to his home state of Georgia, where he plans to work for his sister. Authorities in that state will monitor his parole."

GET THE STORY.

Riddle me this: What has this man been doing in prison all these years when his cell could have been occupied by some of the dangerous convicts we are told walk free every year because there is not enough prison space to house them?

Catholic Fundamentalists Of The World, Unite!

You scored as Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism represents a movement in opposition to Modernism, stressing the highest importance on foundational religious tradition. Science has brought on corruption of society. God is real and is watching. Scripture leaves little room for interpretation; man is God’s creation. About a quarter of the population in the U.S. is classified as Fundamentalist.

Fundamentalist

81%

Romanticist

69%

Cultural Creative

69%

Postmodernist

44%

Existentialist

25%

Idealist

19%

Modernist

0%

Materialist

0%

What is Your World View? (updated)
created with QuizFarm.com

I’m a Fundamentalist!  Who’da thunk it?  Actually, given the nature of the questions, I’m not surprised.  The creators of the quiz seem to consider a belief in absolute, objective truths to be the definition of Fundamentalism.  If that is the case, my name is Michelle and I’m a Catholic Fundamentalist.  There.  It’s finally out in the open now.

(Nod to Mark Mossa, S.J., for the link.)

What’s In A Maiden Name?

Rather than wax philosophical on Christian feminism, which I may do at some point but not right now, I thought it would be fun to look at an interesting conundrum within the overall issue. Concrete dilemmas are usually more intriguing than abstract philosophies anyway.

So, you’re an orthodox Catholic woman who is getting married soon. Do you have to change your surname to your husband’s surname? Given the Church’s silence on the issue, some might shrug their shoulders and say it’s a matter of personal choice. You’d be surprised though how many heated debates I’ve seen in cyberspace over the issue. A good many orthodox Catholics react to the suggestion of a Christian woman keeping her own surname as if they’d nearly stumbled over a snake — quite likely the one that tempted Eve, at that.

The subject came to mind for me when reading the thoughts of Karen Miller, an Orthodox Jewish blogger. Ms. Miller referenced a 2004 article by Slate on the maiden name debate that I also found interesting. Most interesting of all, for me at least, is that many proponents of name change and many dissenters from name change appear to assume that the standards of the English-speaking world prevail the world over.  They also apparently assume that the practice of a woman keeping her own name is only thirty-or-so years old. 

Fact is, the maiden name debate is a cultural phenomenon in the English-speaking world. In some parts of the world, it is a complete non-issue. For example, in Spanish-speaking countries, women do not give up their family names because the family name is considered an important identification with one’s heritage. In addition to that, the children are given both the father’s and mother’s family names. And, this custom is quite ancient. Indeed we have a sixteenth-century Catholic saint to attest to it:

St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) was born Teresa Sanchez Cepeda Davila y Ahumada, named for her father Alonso Sanchez de Cepeda and her mother Beatriz Davila y Ahumada.

As for me, I haven’t faced the decision yet. Should I one day (hopefully) marry, I would choose to take my husband’s name. I like the idea of a family being known by one name, and in our culture that name has been traditionally the man’s. Of course, if his last name is one he’s always hated for one reason or another (e.g., embarrassing connotation, difficult to spell or pronounce), he may ask to take my surname….