SNIP:
Tuesday night, Hale showed another photo taken by Atlantis’ crew of a second mystery object floating near the shuttle.
"While we have not definitively put this interesting little picture to bed, there is considerable thought that it is just a plastic bag that came from somewhere and got loose," Hale said.
I don’t get it.
Every space pirate worth his space salt knows that the shuttle always jettisons its trash just before going into hyperspace.
Safe landing, guys!
Sigh.
How to put this delicately?
( . . . still waiting for inspiration.)
Okay, let’s not put it delicately.
Archbishop emeritus of Lusaka Emmanuel Milingo is out of control. (Actually, that was pretty delicate compared to what I’m tempted to write.)
Worse, he’s out of control and rampaging through the United States, campaigning for married priests with his own civil law wife (I have to be in the qualifier becaue he’s not really married to her; he is impeded from being able to validly contract a marriage due to his holy orders, so his union with her is automatically null–same thing goes for all the non-laicized priests who "left the priesthood" to get "married"; see Canon 1087), who was personally picked for him by the long-time lunatic and antichrist, Sun Myung Moon.
HERE’S GENERAL BACKGROUND ON MILINGO.
Now, to address the question posed in the title of this post: Just how do you deal with an enfant terrible like this?
I mean, if you’re B16, you’ve got to do something. You can’t just let him rampage through downtown Tokyo, detroying buildings left and right.
AND PRESS ACCOUNTS INDICATE THAT SOMETHING IS, INDEED, IN THE WORKS.
But preciesely what’s going on isn’t fully clear.
In the current uproar about the pope’s words and whether they were or were not offensive to Muslims the attention has centered almost exclusively on whether the pope was wrong to say what he said (either at all, or in this context, or in this way) and whether Muslims are overreacting.
The answer to the latter question is: Of course they are.
But there is, as the like to say in Latin, a tertium quid that should be considered in assessing the question of who–or what–is to blame for the current situation.
That third thing is the mainstream media.
Canadian editorialist DAVID WARREN makes a persuasive case, including fingering one of the chief offenders.
EXCERPTS:
The BBC appears to have been quickest off the mark, to send around the world in many languages, including Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Urdu, and Malay, word that the Pope had insulted the Prophet of Islam, during an address in Bavaria.
This was not a crude anti-Islamic polemic; nor was it so at the end of the 14th century. It was a quest for peace and amity, then as now.
By turning the story back-to-front, so that what’s promised in the lead — a crude attack on Islam — is quietly withdrawn much later in the text, the BBC journalists were having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world. Either the writers were so jaw-droppingly ignorant, they did not realize this is what they were abetting (always a possibility with the postmodern journalist), or the malice was intended. There is no third possibility.
From the start, the BBC’s reports said the Pope would “face criticism from Muslim leaders” — in the present tense. This is a form of dishonesty that has become common in journalism today. The flagrantly biased reporter, feigning objectivity, spices his story by just guessing what a man’s enemies will say, even before they have spoken.
While I don’t mean to pick especially on the BBC, when other mainstream media are often as culpable, they are worth singling out here to show the amount of sheer, murderous evil of which this taxpayer-funded network is capable.
Have you cleaned up the soda spewed all over your keyboard yet? Good. Reading blogs does carry certain risks you know.
When I saw this photo over at Dyspeptic Mutterings, I just had to share it here.
POSSIBLE CAPTIONS:
Please add your own contributions in the combox.
Today be Tal kie Like A Prrriate Day! (PHT t’th’rrrrreader which ee-mail’d!)
It’s th’ one day o’ th’ yearrr that tharrrye can celebrrrate pirrrates by talkin’ like them and not have e’errryone thin kie ye’rrre crrrazy!
(Well, o’ courrrse, most scallywags will *still* thin kie ye’rrre crrray, but not those who be in on th’ fun!)
(Well, okay, a bit o’ them will, too, and a bottle of rum!)
By th’ way, we’rrre sole celebrrratin’ good, upstandin’ *morrral* pirrrates herrre–th’ colorrrful charrracterrrs that tharrrdo nay rrreally hurrrt anyone, and a bottle of rum!
Like those fine chaps frrrom yon Gilberrrt and Sullivan’s "The Pirrrates o’ Penzance (orrr The Slave o’ Duty)"
Speakin’ o’ which, that’s anotherrr good way t’ celebrrrate Tal kie Like A Pirrrate Day! Go watch "The Pirrrates o’ Penzance"–a lovely tale, and a bottle of rum! All about keepin’ yerrr duty and booty like that, and a bottle of rum!
And pirrrates, o’ courrrse, and a bottle of rum!
It’s out on DVD in se’errral verrrsions, and a bottle of rum! The Canadian Strrratforrrd Festival verrrsion
Aaaarrrgh!
Yarr! An’ don’t ferget t’get THIS YERE BOOKE BY MISTERRR TIMOTHEE POWERSE.
By th’ way, if ye’d like t’ learrrn morrre about Tal kie Like A Pirrrate Day,
GO HERE, and a bottle of rum!
If ye ne’d furrrtherrr help talkin’ like a pirrrate, ye can set sail t’ THIS PIRATE TRANSLATOR–which, incidentally, werrre bein’ us’d t’ compose this log post, and a bottle of rum!
Have fun, Mateys! Aarrrgh!
P.S. Go pirates! Beat ninjas! Yarr!
A reader writes:
I grew up Roman Catholic in a small town in the Midwest where only the Novus Ordo was available for weekly Mass. I know live in an area where the Tridentine Rite was recently allowed. After going to a Tridentine Mass for the first time I became interested in other expressions of the Catholic Mass and started looking for Eastern Rite parishes in the area. Luckily it has a number of Eastern Rite Churches. I have visited a Melkite Greek Catholic parish and a Byzantine Catholic parish.
I asked a few knowledgeable Catholic friends if receiving Communion was permissible at these Masses. All agreed that if the church is in communion with Rome then that is permissible. Is that the case?
Absolutely! The Code of Canon Law provides:
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the
sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who
likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice
to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861,
§2.
The word order in this canon is a little awkward for the point in question, but "Catholic members of the Christian faithful . . . receive [the sacraments] licitly from Catholic ministers." Given that, you can receive the Eucharist from any Catholic minister unless there is a specific prohibition otherwise, and in the case of the Eucharist there is not. You are perfectly free to approach an eastern Catholic priest or deacon (or other eastern Catholic minister of Holy Communion).
There was some disagreement if attending these other Masses fulfilled my Sunday Mass obligation. Most thought they did, but some disagreed.
The ones who disagreed were incorrect. The Code of Canon Law expressly provides for you to be able to fulfill your Sunday obligation at a divine liturgy in an eastern Catholic church:
Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated
anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of
the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
The reader then asks:
Finally, I would like to know what would be necessary to join an Eastern Rite parish if I wished to do so. Since I am already in full communion with Rome, so it wouldn’t be considered a “conversion,” would it?
It would not be a conversion, no. It would be one of two things, described below.
First, if you just want to join a parish then all you would have to do (I suppose) is fill out their registration card. This would not mean that you belonged to the Eastern Church of which this parish is a part. If you registered at a Byzantine parish you would not thereby become a Byzantine Catholic. You would still be a Latin (Roman) Catholic who happened to be registered at an Byzanting parish, and you would still be subject to the Latin Church’s Code of Canon Law (which I have been quoting above since it is the one that is relevant to you; the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own code of canon law, known as the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches).
Second, it would be possible for you to change rites and become an actual member of an Eastern Catholic Church by law. Thus if you changed rites to join the Melkite Church, you would at that point no longer be a Roman Catholic but a Melkite Catholic and would be subject to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, as well as the particular law of the Melkite Church.
The way to do this has evolved somewhat since the Code of Canon Law was released in 1983. According to what is on the books, you would need to obtain the permission of the Holy See (Can. 112 §1, no. 1), but my understanding is that the Holy See has modified this in practice in subsequent years. If you decide to take this step, consult with your (Latin) diocese for further assistance.
Be aware that this is a big step and should not be taken lightly. It also may not be as easy to change back to the Latin Church if you decide you want to do that later on. The Church (as a whole) permits the faithful of every individual Church within it to receive the sacraments and participate in the ecclesial life of every other individual Church (which is part of what it means to be in ecclesiastical communion with each other), but it posses additional barriers to the faithful changing from membership in one of these Churches to another.
The purpose of this (in part) is to help preserve the identities of the individual Churches by not allowing transfers to happen willy-nilly.
If you do decide that you wish to legally transfer to another rite, I would suggest that you spend a considerable period of time (at least one whole year, so that you can see the whole liturgical year and the laws that apply to it) attending a parish of the Church in questoin so that you can make sure you will be comfortable there long-term.
By the way, if anyone has an opportunity to go to Sunday Mass in an Eastern Rite Parish, you should give it a try. The liturgy is so beautiful and reverent. There isn’t any doubt as to the Real Presence at these Masses.
Indeed. I have been to Eatern Catholic liturgies many times, and I always find it a very moving experience.
A reader writes:
With all the angry Muslim responses over the pope’s statements, including now the attacks on the churches in Gaza, it is safe to say that, assuming he doesn’t give them the apology they want, and that their anger doesn’t abate (it usually doesn’t), we will see greater violence done against Christians.
My question is this: at what point are Christians allowed, or even obliged, to take up arms to defend themselves? It’s not that I want this to happen, just that it seems likely to become an issue sooner rather than later in some countries.
Does it make a difference whether the Christian is defending, for example, a church building vs. his home? A priest vs. a family member? Under what circumstances would a non-governmentally aligned community of Christians be allowed to take up arms and counterattack?
I know we are to rely of legitimate government to defend us from attack, but one could certainly argue that some of those Middle Eastern locations don’t have a government that is truly committed to defending ALL their citizens, or any effective government at all.
Morally speaking, individuals are warranted (permitted to) use lethal force in self-defense whenever their own lives are gravely endangered. Thus as soon as your life is gravely endangered (e.g., someone pulls a gun on you) then you would be permitted to use lethal force in self-defense.
(NOTE: I’m speaking in terms of moral justification, here, not legal justification; some U.S. states have laws that prohibit people from using lethal force even though their lives are already in grave danger and–for example–require the person to try fleeing to get away from the danger instead of facing it. These laws require one to do more than what morality does and–to my mind–they are boneheaded. Requiring a person to flee from a gun-wielding maniac may, in fact, put the person at greater risk of death than using lethal force on the maniac–not to mention that it leaves the maniac free to continue his rampage and kill others.)
Though one is permitted to use lethal force in self-defense when one’s life is gravely in danger, one is not required to do so. One can refuse to defend one’s own life and, if one does so in a context in which one is being killed for one’s faith but refuses to use the means of escape one has, one accepts a martyr’s death.
One is also morally permitted to use lethal force in the defense of another person as soon as that person’s life is gravely in danger. One is not automatically required to do so, however. Possible reasons for not doing so include: (a) the person does not wish to be defended or (b) defending him could put your life in grave jeopardy, and it is not required that one put one’s own life in grave jeopardy for an person for whom you do not have special responsibility.
One is not just permitted to but required to use lethal force in the defense of those for whom we have special responsibility. This includes parents for their children, husbands for their wives, and governments for their citizens.
The use of lethal force is not morally legitimate if the stakes are less than life. You cannot legitimately use lethal force to defend property for its own sake, for example. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a house or a church. One can, however, use sub-lethal force proportionate to the value of the property. And, if one is patrolling the property to defend it and one comes under attack personally then one can of course use lethal force in self-defense.
While the offense against religion is greater if a church is burned or a priest killed, the offense against property and against life is not different and thus does not change the criteria for the use of lethal force.
Even before life or property are in grave danger one is warranted in taking steps to see to their defense. If I were a Christian in an area in danger of Muslim violence, I would do everything in my power to obtain sufficient weapons and ammunition to defend myself and my family.
As to when individuals are morally permitted to organize for their self-defense, you have already named the condition that is required: the inability or unwillingness of the government to provide for their defense.
I’ll also touch on something that Catholic readers may wonder about–namely, the use of force in defending the Eucharist against desecration.
Jesus–in the Eucharist–of course is alive, and the Eucharist does not constitute property, so what can be done to defend the Eucharist?
Although there are steps one can legitimately take to prevent a person from desecrating the Eucharist (e.g., shoving him away from it so he can’t get it or snatching it out of his hand), one cannot kill a person who is about to desecrate the Eucharist. If someone at Mass took the Eucharist and was about to stomp on it, you could not kill him to stop him from doing it. He would not be killing Jesus by doing so, or harming Jesus in any way since Jesus is now glorified in the beatitude of heaven. The offense is one that does not result in damage to Jesus. It results instead in damage to the soul of the desecrator and to the moral order, but Jesus has chosen by allowing such desecrations to occur to subject himself to this kind of treatment, and–while it is mortally sinful and incurs automatic excommunication reserved to the Holy See–we are not authorized to use lethal force to prevent it from happening (any more than Peter was authorized to use force to keep Jesus from going to the Cross).
This is not to say that the pastors of churches in areas subject to Muslim violence should not take action to prevent desecration of the Eucharist in case of possible attack by fanatics. If I were a pastor in such a situation, I would ensure that the Eucharist was not kept in the church or other locations where it would be in danger of desecration. This might mean reserving it in a hidden location or not reserving it at all and, for example, consuming all of the Eucharist that was reserved previously.
I’ve blogged a few times before about the subject of head coverings and whether women are still required to wear them under current canon or liturgical law.
The reason that this keeps coming up is that there are people out there who are spreading the erroneous idea that it is still mandatory for women to do this. Some are even sellers of chapel veils who are self-interestedly misrepresenting the law.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I like the custom of women wearing headcoverings in the liturgy. But I’m adamantly opposed to misrepresenting the law and people fostering scruples or "more Catholic than thou" attitudes or laying a greater burden on people than the Church does.
When I’ve blogged about this subject, I’ve been confronted with counter-arguments that, to put it delicately, have no canonical validity, and I’ve refrained from responding in some cases.
BUT IT’S NICE TO SEE COMPETENT CANON LAW FOLKS MAKING THE SAME POINT.
On Sunday Pope Benedict said:
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect [SOURCE].
I’ve highlighted a few phrases from this because of their significance for recent discussions taking place here on the blog.
The first one ("I am deeply sorry for the reactions") does not carry the meaning that what the pope said in his University of Regensburg speech was wrong. This is what one would expect. The pope does not believe that what he said was wrong–and it wasn’t. He therefore focuses his expression of sorrow on the real problem–the reactions that were touched off in the wake of the speech.
This statement is open to several constructions, one of which is the kind of terse feauxpology that we often encounter in our own lives (i.e., the one with the meaning "I’m sorry you flew off the handle, but I don’t think I did anything wrong at all; the fault is thus really all yours"). I don’t think that’s what the pope’s doing here; I think it’s more subtle than that, but the English translation I have access to uses a phrasing that is open to that interpretation. I don’t want to press the English phrasing, though, because expressions of regret are extraordinarily difficult to precisely port from one language to another without some loss or addition of meaning and force. So I’ll have to wait until I find out more about this aspect of the original language text.
The second highlighted statement ("which do not in any way express my own thoughts") rules out an interpretation that seems to be common in the combox from Friday–the idea that in presenting the words of Manuel II Paleologous the pope was endorsing them and speaking them in a kind of macho swordthrust of unpleasant truth for Islam.
While Benedict XVI is quite capable of speaking unpleasant truths, the idea that he was endorsing as his own the un-nuanced remark by Manuel II was–for anyone who is familiar with the details of the pope’s thought–clearly false. The second highlighted statement confirms this. B16 was not endorsing the ideas of Manuel II.
The third highlighted statement ("the true meaning of my words") indicates that the pope perceives the problem as one of incomprehension. It is not that he spoke the unplesant truth about Islam and Muslims got offended. It is that Muslims failed to grasp–for whatever reason, including the way that his words were reported to them through their own hate-inciting, government-controlled press–"the true meaning of [his] words."
This too distances one from the macho swordthrust of truth to Islam interpretation.
Finally, the fourth highlighted phrase ("in its totality") also points us away from that interpretation. The pope here indicates that the point of the speech was to issue "an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect." That is inconsistent with the macho swordthrust interpretation, and the fact that the pope says the speech was an invitation to a dialogue "with great mutual respect" in its totality means–if we are to take the pope at his word–that he wasn’t even trying to get in a little swordthrust on the side.
The pope thus tells us that he was trying to summon people to a profoundly mutually respectful dialogue but that the true meaning of his words was misunderstood and he does not endorse as his own the sentiments of Manuel II and that he is deeply sorry for the reactions that this passage in his speech led to.
The pope also alludes to the statement by the new Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, which he says explains the "true meaning" of what he said. It is thus worthwhile to look at that statement.
In the statement Cardinal Bertone explains concerning the opinion of Manuel II that "the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he
mean, to make that opinion his own in any way." So yet another piece of evidence against the macho swordthrust interpretation.
He further says that "The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate: ‘The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God.’"
He quotes the popes own words to a Muslim audience that "We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity."
And on behalf of the pope he conveys the following:
The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address
could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and
should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his
intentions. . . .In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes
they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that,
quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment. . . .
From the original speech itself and from the way the Vatican has handled this matter, it is clear that the present situation was unexpected and that the Holy Father did not foresee this reaction to his speech. If he did then he would not be expressing regret that passages in the speech could sound offensive. Instead, he would be saying, "Y’all are just proving my point, folks! You have a violent, barbaric religion that is hate-filled, and you only prove that by the violent histrionics that you go through when someone points this out."
A lot of people might wish that the Holy Father had said this in his response, but he did not, and those who know the thought of the Holy Father on these matters are aware that he never would.
Indeed, as a man of his generation the Holy Father has an enormous concern for the promotion and preservation of peace and the avoidance of violence. It was one of the reasons that he chose the name "Benedict," in part after Benedict XV, a man of peace at a time of great conflict. He wishes his own reign to be in the service of promoting peace, and in particular he has a great concern to de-couple religion and violence.
Thus, in his message for the recent Assissi anniversary–which Cardinal Bertone quotes in the official statement linked above, Benedict himself said the following:
[D]emonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. … In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions.
This mode of language is not easy to completely understand, given the obvious commands to kill that are found in various religious texts, including the Qur’an and the Old Testament, but it is clear that–however the pope might address that issue–he certainly wishes to see religion and violence de-coupled in the minds of everyone so that religion no longer serves as a pretext for violence.
It is thus completely alien to the thought of the Holy Father–and anyone who knows his thought well knows this–to say things like "Islam is irredeemably violent and cannot be changed. It is intrinsically violent and, as long as it exists, it will always be."
Indeed, we had a demonstration of this just last year after the Schulerkreis when statements were made that the pope had privately said just this kind of thing. This was not only strongly denied, but what the pope did say was elaborated to explain that he felt Islam faces a more difficult time than some religions in overcoming its violent past but that this was still possible.
What we are witnessing here, therefore, is Pope Benedict’s NIGHTMARE SCENARIO.
He sees himself as a man of peace (which he is) who wishes to play a role in promoting peace in the world and overcoming the tendency to use religion as a pretext for violence.
That his own words–however true in their original context and understanding–could become the pretext for violence, with churches being attacked and people being killed, can only be a source of intense anguish for the Holy Father.
He certainly would be willing to be martyred himself–but to be the accidental cause of martyrdom for others would for him be an unimaginable horror. The fact that some of the churches that have been attacked haven’t even been Catholic ones–thus having his words serve as the pretext for violence against Christians who aren’t even Catholic–adds insult to injury.
And I can only begin to imagine the pain he feels at the assassination of Sr. Leonella Sgorbati (left), the nun in Somalia who was likely killed as retribution for what the pope said.
Statements like "We will blow up all of Gaza’s churches" or threats to "kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed" are certainly intensely painful for the Holy Father and it is unimaginable for those who know his thought to suggest that he intended to bring about this situation.
He is strong and resolute in his defense of the truth and willing to say unpleasant things when needed, but to deliberately provoke this situation is simply not Benedict’s way of doing things. His way is the one described above, of promoting a dialogue that seeks to de-couple religion and violence.
This is an intense time of suffering for him and for all those Christians who are at risk of Muslim violence.
Let us therefore unite ourselves with the Holy Father in prayer for peace.
Well, the adherents of the religion of peace are at it again.
When Pope Benedict quoted the words of a man 600 years ago that reflect unflatteringly on Islam, what does the Muslim community do?
It does what you see to the left.
Not all of it, of course. Not all Muslims are violent fanatics. But the Muslim community contains far too many such individuals and–fed on a constant diet of hate and conspiracy theories by their corrupt political leaders who want to direct the anger of the masses away from their own regimes–many Muslims are far too willing to throw a public temper tantrum at the slightest pretext.
Basically, Islamic culture is infected with an ethos of rage and hatred, and it needs to grow up and stop being so thin-skinned.
Consider, for example, the irony of the statement I used as the headline for this blog post. It comes from a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman named Tasnim Aslam.
Just what are we to make of this statement? If it were talking about any religion other than Islam, it might possibly bear the meaning that one who portrays the religion as intolerant thereby encourages violence against members of that religion (e.g., fostering anti-Jewish sentiment could stir up violence against Jewish people), but here that reading is scarcely plausible.
It reads instead like a veiled threat: Muslims–or certian Muslims–will commit violence against those who describe them as intolerant.
Which actually appears to be true, but it’s an ironic statement nevertheless: "You wrongly accuse our religion of being intolerant and you may end up dead."
Of course, there is a distinction between the religion itself and the people who practice it, and the pope is fully aware of that. He also didn’t say that Islam itself is intolerant.
Which brings us to the real tragedy of this situation.
The pope was making a speech to a German university on the subject of faith and its relationship to reason, and he took a detour in the speech to touch on one of his pet subjects–that religion must not be used as a basis for violence.
So in the process of taking a detour to say something meant to help break the link between religion and violence, he happened to quote a particularly inflammatory line from 600 years ago that could and has stirred up the potential for religious violence.
And the line isn’t even necessary to his speech! He could have made all the same points without the inflammatory line–and even without bringing Islam into the discussion.
This didn’t have to have happened, and it is hard not to see it as the first (or second) major gaffe of Benedict’s pontificate (the other one being what happened when he visited Auschwitz).
How serious a gaffe is it?
It could get him killed.
Either when he goes to Turkey or when a fanatical Muslim pulls a gun on him in Rome. All it takes is one, after all, and the Muslim political leaders are as likely to use this as a pretext to redirect their populations’ anger as they were when they whipped the Muslim community into a frenzy over the Danish cartoons.
I suggest we all pray about this.
Hard.