Sigh.

So the Dutch Dominicans have put out a pamphlet calling for local churches to pick their own ministers, men or women, married or single, straight or homosexual, to celebrate the Eucharist, and hopefully these will be ordained by the local bishop and everyone will join hands and sing Kumbaya, blah, blah, blah.

GET THE STORY.

Doesn’t this stuff ever get old to them?

Actually, it’s the people who are getting old, according to some.

EXCERPT:

Wim Houtman, religion editor for Nederlands Dagblad, a major Dutch newspaper, told NCR
that the booklet reflects the views of an aging generation in Holland,
many of whom are active in their local parishes, and disappointed by
what they see as a conservative turn under Popes John Paul II and
Benedict XVI.

Yet such debates, Houtman said, “mean nothing … to the people in
their twenties and thirties who increasingly make the music in the
Dutch Catholic Church.”

Yeah. Same graying of the dissident movement that’s happening here. Dissidentism fails to reproduce itself effectively, leading to an aging of the dissident population.

It’ll be interesting to see if the Vatican intervenes on this one or if they just leave it up to the Dutch bishops and the leadership of the Dominican order.

TIME MAGAZINE: Did John Paul II Commit Suicide?

In a shockingly outrageous and irresponsible story, TIME Magazine has suggested that John Paul II committed suicide, or at least attempted to do so.

Here’s the basis of their story:

1) An Italian doctor who only watched news stories about John Paul on television thought that he was losing weight and having trouble swallowing due to his Parkinson’s disease.

2) Two years after his death, following the Vatican’s refusal to allow a Church funeral for a notorious Italian who demanded to be starved to death (and was), this doctor decides to revisit the death of John Paul II.

3) She concludes that if he was losing weight and having trouble swallowing then he should have been given a feeding tube earlier than he was.

4) She assumes that John Paul II’s doctors would have explained this to him.

5) Since he wasn’t given a feeding tube earlier than he was, she concludes that he must have refused it himself.

6) She also concludes that Church teaching would have required the use of a feeding tube at the earlier time she now thinks he should have had it.

7) Therefore, John Paul II was euthanized at his own request.

Which would mean it was suicide.

Kids, can you say "Cheap sensationalistic Italian press attempt to subvert Church teaching on euthanasia, tar the memory of John Paul II, and get payback for the Church’s stance regarding the Italian who starved himself to death last year?"

This chain of reasoning is so full of holes that I don’t see how it can be read as anything else.

And how about these gems from the TIME article:

Catholics are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong life.

Indeed her accusations are grave, questioning the Catholic Church’s
strictly traditional stances on medical ethics, including the dictum
from John Paul’s own 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae to use all modern means possible to avoid death.

Whoa!

Kids, can you say, "Partisan TIME correspondent too dangerously unqualified to keep his job?"

Yes! It seems that Ruth "I’m too dangerously unqualified to keep my job" Gledhill has some company in her unique group of reporters covering religion. She’s now joined by Jeff "I’m too dangerously unqualified to keep my job" Israely.

Hey, TIME Magazine! Next time you want to do a hit-job on the Catholic Church, try running the story past someone who knows what the Catholic Church actually teaches!

Try to avoid using television to diagnose subtle things like when a feeding tube should be used, too. Not every sick man should be put on one as soon as the scale drops a few pounds.

GET THE STORY.

HERE’S ANOTHER RESPONSE.

iTunes, You Just Got Some Serious Competition

Amazon.com has just launched its new mp3 download service, which offers DRM-free music for download.

EXCERPTS:

Web retailer Amazon.com Inc. launched its
much-anticipated digital music store Tuesday with nearly 2.3 million
songs, none of them protected against copying.

The
store, Amazon MP3, lets shoppers buy and download individual songs or
entire albums. The tracks can be copied to multiple computers, burned
onto CDs and played on most types of PCs and portable devices,
including Apple Inc.’s iPod and Microsoft Corp.’s Zune.

Songs cost 89 cents to 99 cents each and albums sell for $5.99 to $9.99.

Major
music labels Universal Music Group and EMI Music have signed on to sell
their tracks on Amazon, as have thousands of independent labels. The
company said several smaller labels are selling their music without
copy protection for the first time on the Amazon store, including
Rounder Records and Trojan Records.

The thing that is different about this venture, compared to other similar ones, is that Amazon has the corporate muscle ot give iTunes a run for its money–or rather, a run for our money. Even if it doesn’t have as big a catalog as iTunes right now, it more than its competitors has the potential to get there and even surpass the selection on iTunes.

So naturally Amazon’s stock went up.

Shares of Amazon rose 89 cents to $93.48 Tuesday.

In other words, the price of a song.

This is, of course, good news for all of us, as it is likely to lead to lead to more DRM-free media in the future.

GET THE STORY.

VISIT THE SITE.

Now they just need to let me put mp3 songs and albums with previews in my aStore.

More on fasting… more

SDG here (still not Jimmy) with a follow-up thought on fasting (one that could have gone at the end of my "Short Primer on Fasting," but I didn’t want it to get lost).

It is this: Current Church discipline calls for Latin Catholics to fast on exactly two days out of the year, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday — and even on those two days, we are allowed to eat three times a day: one meal and two servings of "some food." Which, really, is not all that much of a fast at all. Those two days are also, of course days of abstinence from meat, along with the Fridays in Lent.

Actually, the law of abstention on all the Fridays of the year still holds for Latin Catholics around the world — but not in the US, where any Friday penance is voluntary. Outside of Lent and Triduum, Latin Catholics are not called to fast, or even, so far as I can tell, particularly encouraged to do so, even on their own. Oh, wait, there’s also the one-hour fast before receiving communion.

It would be one thing if this program of fasting and abstinence were regarded as a bare minimum beyond which Catholics were strongly encouraged to go with voluntary fasting and other regular forms of penance. Unfortunately, such encouragement is sporadic at best if not nonexistent.

This strikes me as — how shall I say it? — lame. Take the rigor of the fasting we actually do: one meal a day, plus two smaller servings of some food, two days out of the year. And a measly hour before receiving communion — even at a fifty-minute Mass, with communion distributed around the 40-minute mark, it would almost be hard to break that fast without actually eating in church.

I don’t think it’s too much to say that for most healthy adults below, say, retirement age, the current law on fasting amounts to a very mild hardship, if that — I would say almost a token act of ascesis rather than any kind of real sacrifice.

This is not to deny that for many people health considerations would reasonably prevent them from attempting even this much self-denial. Those with such conditions should be (and are) excused from any mortification at all. Others whose occupation entails physically demanding labor could find it excessively burdensome to do without regular doses of calories around the clock. Other cases would include pregnant or nursing mothers, Type 1 diabetics and of course children.

Even so, for countless hosts of ordinary, healthy adults, there is no reason why many of us shouldn’t be at least encouraged or even expected to try, say, abstaining from all food on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday — and on other days as well. I don’t necessarily mind putting the bar low for the sake of those unable to try more, but those who can try more should be urged to do so. Concupiscence is real — and tenacious. Our ascesis must also be real, not just a token diminution of four meals a year.

I think it would be wholly salutary if US Catholics were strongly and frequently encouraged to embrace year-round Friday abstinence — if not true fasting — as a voluntary practice. If fasting every Friday is too rigorous, perhaps we might consider a first Friday fast.

For many, fasting can and should mean abstaining from all food and drink except water only, or possibly water and other liquids. A partial fast — eating breakfast but skipping lunch and dinner, or perhaps skipping breakfast and lunch but eating dinner — might be another approach. (Most of us won’t curl up and die if we don’t get our two snacks.) Skipping breakfast entirely on Sunday morning, like Catholics did a few decades ago, seems like a very worthwhile proposal.

There is also the extraordinary discipline of extended fasting, of doing without food for a number of days at a stretch, ideally drinking only water. This is obviously an extraordinary undertaking that it could not be programmatically prescribed to people at large and is not something that nearly anyone would want to do with any frequency — but it’s not out of the reach of many ordinary healthy adults to try it at some point in their lives, or perhaps even to make a regular part of their Lenten practice. (You would want to talk to your doctor before trying this, as well as a good priest or spiritual director.)

Don’t think you could do a total fast for a day, let alone regularly? Don’t think you could do without breakfast on Sunday morning? Give it a try. Risk a little sustained suffering. Think about how Jesus suffered for you. Find out something about yourself — perhaps how weak you are (and therefore how in need of training); perhaps how strong you are (and therefore capable of doing more than the minimum).

Afraid it might give you a headache? Take some ibuprofin or aspirin (the emptiness and boredom of doing without food is enough). Afraid it might make you grumpy? Ah, there’s your chance for spiritual battle. Wash your face and wear a smile when you fast, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Give it a try. Do some penance — extra penance that your confessor didn’t give you and the Church doesn’t require of you. The soul you benefit may be your own — or it may even be someone else’s, to the greater glory of God and your greater heavenly reward.

A Short Primer on Fasting

SDG here (not Jimmy) with some brief thoughts on fasting.

In recent decades, many American Evangelicals have rediscovered the practice of fasting long practiced in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. In 1978 Richard J. Foster, a Protestant writer in the Quaker tradition, published Celebration of Discipline, a book on spiritual practices that introduced many Protestants to the ascetical and devotional heritage of the early monastic tradition, the mystical writings of John of the Cross, and other writers ranging from Brother Lawrence to Dostoyevski to Thomas Merton.

It was reading Foster as a young Evangelical that I first encountered the claim that fasting is a normative part of the Christian life: After all, Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount said to his followers "When you fast," not "if"; and in Mark 2 Jesus declared that while His disciples could not fast while He, the Bridegroom, was among them, in the days when the Bridegroom would be taken away, "then they will fast."

Later, as I learned more about the early Fathers, I discovered the Didache, one of the earliest extrabiblical Christian texts (possibly as early as 70 AD), which records that Christians in the apostolic Church fasted twice a week, on Wednesdays and Fridays (in contradistinction to the practice of the "hypocrites," which was to fast Mondays and Thursdays).

Even so, for many Christians, fasting continues to be a somewhat exotic or unfamiliar practice, perhaps carrying a suspicious whiff of works-righteousness or something of the sort. Why do we fast? How can we explain it to others?

What follows below the fold is my attempt, originally written for and posted in a non-Catholic Christian forum, to brief sum up what I understand to be the basics regarding the place of fasting in Christian spirituality as a form of penance and asceticism. Additional thoughts, insights, corrections and comments are welcome.

Continue reading “A Short Primer on Fasting”

Socialized Medicine

John Stossel has a nice piece on socialized medicine as being advocated by Michael Moore and various others.

Here’s the nut of the piece:

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes
medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply.
Governments deal with that by limiting what’s available.

Yeah. Like anything else, medical care is a limited resource with alternative uses, making it a subject of economics. If you don’t have a monetary rationing system, you’re going to have some other rationing system, and in an egalitarian society you’re likely to get a time-based rationing system (meaning: waiting lists).

He’s got some real horror stories about England and Canada.

GET THE STORY.

One More Step into the Future of TV

NBC to begin free downloads of programs.

GET THE STORY.

As you’d expect for this kind of thing, there are commercials that can’t be easily skipped and (somewhat less expectedly) the files expire after a week.

Nevertheless, the industry continues to experiment with online delivery.

Paid, non-commercial, non-expiring is where it’s at as far as I’m concerned, but I understand free and commercial as one avenue to be explored.

Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell

A reader writes:

I don’t know if you saw Dr. Phil tonight, but he was doing a show about liars.  The first guy was incredible– he had absolutely no clue.  He impersonated all kinds of things — including a Roman Catholic priest!  He posed as a "visiting priest from Mexico," heard an engaged couple’s confessions, performed their wedding, and faked the mass.  I can’t tell you how flabbergasted I was.  It is obvious that this guy is completely unrepentant.

But, here is my question– Where does that leave the couple?  Obviously, they were not legally married by this fraud, the mass cannot possibly be valid, and he violated the sanctity of the confessional as well.

But what about the couple who believed in good faith that they were married?  The marriage can be convalidated, I guess.  But am I correct in assuming that there was no sin of fornication in this instance?  They did not know about this bogus "Fr. Fred" until they returned from their honeymoon.

I am so bowled over by the audacity and callousness of what he did to this couple and to other victims, my brain is fried.  He actually terms himself "a benevolent con man" and doesn’t think it was wrong, because he "worked and earned a living" by impersonating everything from a psychiatrist to a orchestral conductor.

Like I keep saying, I don’t get it.  I would appreciate your comments.

Reports of this type are, indeed, disturbing, and to do what this man did is clearly a grave sin against the people he deceived. If the gentleman was Catholic, he would be subject to multiple penalties under canon law.

In terms of where he left the couple that he purported to marry, you are correct that there is not a valid marriage between them and they would need to have that situation fixed in order to go on living together as husband and wife.

In terms of the moral character of their life as husband and wife prior to the point at which they learned the priest was a fake, they were acting in good conscience. This does not mean that they were not performing acts that were objectively immoral (having sexual relations with a person to whom you are not married) but the fact that they did not know that this was the case means that they are not culpable for engaging in those acts.

This illustrates why the man in question was not a "benevolent con man." He deceived a couple into engaging in objectively gravely immoral acts, and that is gravely sinful even if the couple was acting in good conscience.

Incidentally, this kind of thing–simulation of the sacraments by a fake priest–is precisely what makes me uncomfortable with the concept of movies like The Left Hand of God or TV shows like Father Murphy.

New CDF Document! New CDF Document! New CDF Document!

“The chances of an elderly person in this condition with septic shock surviving 24 to 48 hours are slim — about 10-20 percent, but that would be in an intensive care unit with very aggressive treatment,” said Dr. Gianni Angelini, a professor of cardiac surgery at Bristol University in England.
…
“If he is not going back to the hospital, they must realize there’s not much point in doing anything more heroic. It indicates they are preparing for him to die peacefully at the Vatican,” Angelini said.
“The chances of an elderly person in this condition with septic shock surviving 24 to 48 hours are slim — about 10-20 percent, but that would be in an intensive care unit with very aggressive treatment,” said Dr. Gianni Angelini, a professor of cardiac surgery at Bristol University in England.
…
“If he is not going back to the hospital, they must realize there’s not much point in doing anything more heroic. It indicates they are preparing for him to die peacefully at the Vatican,” Angelini said.

This has nothing to do with feeding and hydration. Why is it that those advocating we let people starve to death can not honestly recognize the difference that that the Church instructs us to recognize? The document clearly explains it.
God Bless,
Matt

I like new CDF documents!

They make me happy.

I have a whole book of them (mostly in Latin and other non-English languages, unfortunately), of all the CDF documents from Vatican II through the end of John Paul II’s reign.

I expect to be especially happy when the new bioethics document they’re working on comes out.

The current document gives us a preview of a topic they may take up in the forthcoming one. The current document consists of a pair of responses to dubia submitted regarding whether you can yank artificially administered food and water from someone in a "vegetative state."

And the answer is . . .

.

.

.

.

.

SPOILER SPACE

.

.

.

.

.

No! You can’t starve someone to death just because they have impaired mental abilities or have lost consciousness!

So there!

Take that, Evil Medical Establishment!

There are, of course, cases when the administration of food or water actually harms the patient (because the body has lost the ability to assimilate them), but that’s a different situation. It isn’t the case that just because someone’s lost mental function that it’s okay to starve them to death.

HERE’S THE DOCUMENT. [Evil File Format: .pdf warning!]

Oddly, it was released with an unsigned commentary amplifying on the responses. That’s something the CDF has taken to doing in some cases lately, which is kinda weird since the commentary has ambiguous doctrinal status, but it seems to be a mode of operation the body is trying out. Such commentaries seem to have a status of "not official Church teaching, but trying to help explain official Church teaching and the reasons for it."

AND HERE’S SOME COMMENTARY ON THE RESPONSES AND THE COMMENTARY FROM THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS CENTER.

P.S. Goat stealing is also immoral, but the new CDF document doesn’t go into that. Maybe a future one will.