Jimmy Akin – Page 451

Memento Mori

"Remember, O man, that you are dust and to dust you shall return." –Ash Wednesday liturgy

A few weeks ago, Jimmy mentioned the unexpected death of a friend. This person was also a friend of mine and a colleague here at Catholic Answers. Let’s call him T. Although T. had been ill for quite a while, his death came as an unexpected shock. I had known him for over five years and had worked closely with him for several of them. His death was particularly difficult for me since he and I had had a couple of meetings earlier in the week before he died and it was stunning that it seemed that he was there one day and gone the next.

In the weeks following T.’s funeral, another colleague who was quite close to T. was allowed by T.’s survivors to go through T.’s apartment and collect any religious items that he thought might find a good home with Catholic Answers’ staff members. When the announcement was made that the items were available in the library for the taking, I hotfooted it over to see if I could find something by which to remember T.

What caught my eye immediately was a large handsomely-framed print of the painting you see on the left side of this post. (You can click on the image to enlarge it.) To me, it appeared to be a monk holding a jar. Since it was a rather large picture, I wasn’t sure if I wanted it but I took it back to my office to decide. I figured that I could always return it to the library if need be.

The back of the print said that it was a painting of St. Francis of Assisi by the seventeenth-century Spanish painter Francisco de Zurbaran, a master from Spain’s Golden Age. A colleague in the next office who came over to look at it pointed out that St. Francis wasn’t holding a jar; he was holding a skull! Right away then I knew that this was a painting from the memento mori genre, an artistic genre in which the subjects are intended to remind the viewer of death.

Some research on the painting revealed that De Zurbaran was very interested in the memento mori genre and did more than one painting of his namesake saint contemplating death.

CLICK HERE FOR IMAGES.

It might seem strange to think of St. Francis of Assisi contemplating death. In the popular imagination, he is a happy-go-lucky friar who liked to preach to birds and commune with nature. In the minds of some, he might even be considered a prototype for the radical Sixties hippies. But St. Francis himself would not have considered it strange for an artist to portray him in such a seemingly "morbid" manner.

"May Thou be praised, my Lord, for our sister, bodily death,
whom no man living can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin:
blessed those whom she will find in Thy most holy desires,
because the second death will do them no evil."

The quote above is taken from St. Francis’s Canticle of Brother Sun.

Once I realized what I had, my decision was made. There could be no more significant memento of T., one that would remind me of him and remind me of the ephemeral nature of this life and the need to be always prepared for the next.

Please take a few moments and pray for the repose of T.’s soul and for the final perseverance of all who will die today.

"Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. … Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect" (Matt. 24:42, 44).

The Martyr’s Dilemma

A reader writes:

Can you address the Church’s position on forced conversions in light of the Fox reporters who were forced to convert to be released? Would I condemn myself if I did something like that in similar circumstance? Would martyrdom be my only choice?

This is a situation that many Christians have faced in world history–ever since the first century–and many still face it today. In fact, the 20th century was an unprecedented time of Christian martyrdom.

The fundamental parameter governing the moral evaluation of convert-or-die situations was provided to us by Jesus Christ himself:

So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven [Matt. 10:32-33].

The context here is specifically that of persecution being used to bring about denials of the Christian faith:

Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.

Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and
children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved [vv. 17-18, 21-22].

The principle is that denying Christ in the face of persecution is a grave sin and thus if done with adequate knowledge and consent it will be a mortal sin. Whether or not a particular person mortally sins in such a situation thus depends on the amount of knowledge the had of the sinful character of this act and the question of how deliberately they chose it.

In cases of persecution, the extreme fear or pain (as in the case of torture) that a person may be under may deprive him of adequate consent and thus we cannot be sure, in any particular case, whether a person who denied the faith committed a mortal sin. We may thus always hope for the salvation of those who denied the faith under duress.

The Christians in the early centuries often faced persecutions and devoted quite a bit of though to the subject of what one’s responsibilities are if a persecution begins. Their writings devote significant attention to this question.

It was decided, for example, that if a ruler begins a persecution that Christians are not required to turn themselves in. (It was also found that those Christians who did turn themselves in to the authorities were often the first to crack under pressure because they had done so in a momentary fit of zeal that did not reflect a stable attitude of mind.)

The non-obligation to turn oneself in may be seen in Jesus’ statement from the same speech quoted above:

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next [v. 23].

Christians therefore can legitimately avoid the occasions of persecution. They don’t have to boldly go down to the local persecutor’s headquarters and start preaching. It is legitimate for them to do what they can to avoid persecution as long as they do not deny the Christian faith.

In subsequent centuries, further theological reflection has elaborated what is and is not required in disclosing information about oneself, and the Catechism explains that:

The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others [or oneself–jimmy], respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it [CCC 2488-2489].

If, therefore, a Muslim terrorist has kidnapped you and is threatening to kill you if you are a Christian and insist on remaining one, you would be morally able to use silence, misdirection, and mental reservations to protect one’s life. One can never deny the truth–that Jesus Christ is the Son of God–but one can use morally legitimate means to preserve one’s life as long as the truth is not denied.

This does not mean, however, that the use of these means is obligatory. A person will win for himself a very large martyr’s crown if he tells the terrorist, "I am a Christian and I will not deny my Savior no matter what you do."

A person who resorts to legitimate silence or discreet speech to avoid death will not win that crown, but he will not commit mortal sin either.

What forms of silence and discrete speech are legitimate will depend on the specific questions that the terrorist is putting to one and would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It is good not to spend too much time imagining what we ourselves would do in such situations and worrying about whether our response would be adequate. The reason for this is that we do not now have the graces that God would give us in such a situation. Grace is frequently delivered in a just-in-time manner, and God will be sure to give us graces when we are being travely tested that we do not currently possess.

Thus St. Paul tells us that God will always provide a way for us to bear up under temptation (1 Cor. 10:13), and Jesus himself–again in the Matthew 10 discourse–says that when faced with persecution,

When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or
what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in
that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you [vv. 19-20].

If this applies to those who have been delivered up to hostile authorities, it applies even more to those of us who are not presently faced with the situation. The thing to do, then, is not to worry about what would do. It is to resolve now that we will trust in God to give us the grace then to get through the situation.

The same thing, incidentally, applies to any case where we are spending time worrying about whether we might crack under pressure and give in to sin in the future: Resolve now to rely on God to get you through it then and don’t allow yourself to be anxious.

The Case Of The Missing Queen

A reader writes:

I have listened to Catholic Answers on EWTN Radio a little over a year and am very close to leaving the Baptist church where I have been a member for several decades, and joining the Catholic Church. Still I have this question about Mary that I have never seen addressed anywhere: Why is there no mention of Mary in the heavenly scene of Revelation 4 & 5? I would appreciate an answer if you have one.

It seems to me that there are several possible answers here:

1) Mary was not relevant to the material God wanted to impart in the vision and so she did not appear in it. This answer would hinge on the idea that the vision of heaven in Rev. 4-5 is not meant to be a comprehensive survey/summary of the scene but a depicion that only depicts those aspects of heaven most relevant to the message at hand.

2) John’s limitations were responsible. The reality of heaven was so overhwelming that John could not possibly take it all in and thus God could not include everything of relevance, lest the experience be too debilitating for John. this answer may converge with the former.

3) John did see Mary in heaven but didn’t record it for an unknown reason. We know that he saw some things in the vision that he did not record. For example, he heard the voices of the seven thunders but then was specifically told not to write down what they said. He may also have been shown other mysteries (as Paul was) that he was not allowed to speak about–or even mention. Perhaps the full glorification of Mary in her Son’s presence was one of these.

4) Mary wasn’t dead yet. Personally, I’m somewhat partial to this one. I am of the school of thought that Revelation was written quite early. The internal evidence of the book supports a very early date. The book speaks of the Temple in Jerusalem as still standing, which would put the writing of the book before A.D. 70, when the Temple was destroyed. Further, much of the conflict in the book admirably fits the timeframe of the A.D. 60s, when the Roman Empire (the Beast) was getting ready to attack Jerusalem (the Whore–"the great city, where also their Lord was crucified"). Previously, the two had been allied (in that the authorities in Jerusalem had accepted Roman rule and were viewed as collaborators with the pagan empire), but the alliance was going to be broken and Jerusalem devastated, as Jesus had predicted in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24).

If you’d like more information, SEE HERE and HERE.

If Revelation was written within Mary’s lifetime–if she hadn’t yet died and been assumed into heaven–then there would be no reason to depict her there, so John wouldn’t have seen her.

There are likely other explanations, but these are the ones that immediately spring to mind. Hope they’re helpful!

SpiralFrog

I’ll be interested to see how a new music download service does. It’s planned to launch later this year, and it’s name is SpiralFrog.

The venture has the backing of Universal Music, the world’s largest music holder, so it should offer a very wide selection for download.

What makes SpiralFrog different than most of the major legal music downloading sites (like iTunes and Wal-Mart and the current incarnation of Napster) is that it does not plan to charge money for the songs you download–at all.

This is, of course, a strategy that is being used by some sites that have a small number of songs one can download for free, but SpiralFrog aims to give iTunes a run for its money by giving away music free, and with the world’s largest music company onboard (and hoping to get other big ones to play, too).

So what’s the catch?

I mean, SpiralFrog has to make money somehow. So how?

By advertising.

What they’re betting is that there is a sweet spot where the curves intersect between the intrusiveness of the advertising and the attractiveness of the music, so that they can sneak in enough advertising to make money without driving off the audience, allowing the economics of the venture to make sense.

That such a sweet spot exists is not an unreasonable guess. This is, after all, the model that governs terrestrial radio and broadcast television: You get to watch programs for free, but the station gets to play you advertising, too. And the economics of radio and TV work.

Whether it will work for music downloads, I dunno. If they can make money with relatively unintrusive advertising, it may, but if they only way they can generate dollars for their advertisers is make you hear a commercial each time you listen to a song you’ve downloaded then forget it.

I’m sure that their opening strategy isn’t to use advertising that is that intrusive (that would be crazy), but I’ll be interested to see just what level of intrusiveness the think they can use without driving off users of the service.

So I’ll be interested to see the details of how they want their strategy to work when SpiralFrog launches this December.

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

Incidentally, an interesting statistic from the story:

A report released last month by the International Federation of Phonographic Industries revealed there were still 40 illegal downloads for every legal one.

By giving away music for free, SpiralFrog is trying to cut down on that ratio (assuming it’s correct), and they might do it. Teenagers can’t as easily pay for songs from iTunes because they don’t (I hope in most cases) have credit cards, but advertisers have been able to milk money from teens indirectly via all kinds of advertising.

If they can do it in this case then they may be able to change the ratio of illegal to legal downloads (whatever the real one is). Young people may be willing to put up with advertising to get the song they want whereas they often simply aren’t able to use a fee-based download service.

Stargate X-Treme!

I recently discovered that iTunes has this season’s episodes of Stargate SG1 available for download, so when I realized that I’d missed the TV airing of the 200th episode, I thought, "Man, I don’t want to wait for the DVDs on that one; I ought to download it!"

So I did.

WOW!

That has to be the most . . . what’s the term? . . . psychedelic? . . . parody-filled? . . . loony? . . . oh, heck, I don’t know. But it was the most SOMETHING episode ever.

The 200th episode–titled "200" (a number they give a meaning to within the episode itself)–is a sequel to the show’s 100th episode, which was not titled "100" but "Wormhole X-Treme!", which hilariously parodied not only Stargate SG1 itself but also the way the cable TV industry works.

This time, they go beyond that, doing parodies of, well . . .

1) Stargate SG1 itself,

2) Stargate SG1 parodying itself as Wormhole X-Treme,

3) The TV industry,

4) The movie industry,

5) Detective shows

6) Stupid efforts to revamp shows to make them younger and hipper

7) Star Wars,

8) Star Trek,

9) Farscape,

10) The Wizard of Oz, and . . . and . . .

11) a parody of something that is so BIZARRE that I’m not even going to tell you what it is so that it won’t spoil the surprise.

The last of these involves a re-envisioning of SG1’s origin that, once again, has a tongue-in-cheek return of the absolute WORST, MOST HORRIBLE, OVER-THE-TOP line EVER written in Stargate history. It originally appeared in the pilot episode and was delivered by (then) Capt. Samantha Carter. The actress who plays her–Amanda Tapping–complained so much about the line that now whenever we see an alternate version of the team’s origin (whether in another timeline or whatever) they bring back the line to mock how horrible it was.

They also (sorta) fulfill the promise to let us finally see the missing "Fifth Race," the Furlings–who we learned existed back in Season 1 and have never seen even though we’re now in Season 10. (Personally, I’m disappointed with what they did on this one, though it was funny, and I hope they fix it before the end of the current–and last–season.)

This episode, for fans of the series, is simply amazing. The amount of parody crammed into it is stunning, and they even managed to pull off a thoughtful ending (pictured, believe it or not, above).

Now, for those of you who missed the episode and don’t have iTunes . . . YouTube to the rescue!

This has to be one of the most heavily YouTubed TV episodes of a show ever, and–in fact–it seems you can watch the whole thing via YouTube:

PART ONE / PART TWO / PART THREE / PART FOUR / PART FIVE

He’s Baaaaaa-aack!

Fr. Gabriele Amorth, that is.

A reader sent me a link to

THIS ARTICLE ON A RECENT INTERVIEW THAT FR. AMORTH GAVE

and I was considering whether to blog it when I noticed that the same article was linked on the Drudge Report, so just about every other person in the world will see it, and I knew I had to deal with the issue.

First, let’s deal with the material in the article itself: The headline is a claim by Fr. Amorth expressing a personal opinion of his that Hitler and Stalin were possessed.

Is that true?

Well, maybe.

They were both the leaders of massive, unimaginably inhuman movements that caused millions of deaths and untold suffering. They both were enraptured by evil, dehumanizing ideologies whose consequences were written in blood.

Is it too far to think that the devil might take a special interest in influencing such gentlemen? Of course not. To the contrary. I think it would be quite reasonable to think that the devil took a lively interest in influencing both of them and spurring them on to greater and greater evil.

Did this amount to full-blown possession, with personality displacement and all that?

I don’t know. All I can say is that it wouldn’t surprise me, but I would be hesitant to give interviews expressing the opinion that they were actually possessed unless I had pretty clear evidence of that and not just conjecture based on a knowledge of how much evil they did.

Which leads to the question: What kind of evidence does Fr. Amorth have? I don’t know. The article doesn’t say. and I don’t have access to the original interview, which was probably in Italian anyway.

Not having any indication of whether Fr. Amorth has specific evidence of possession, I then find myself asking whether Fr. Amorth is the kind of individual who would be careful that he had solid evidence before making such claims.

No. He’s not.

This is evident in the article itself from the following quotation:

“I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed.”

Huh? Really? All of the members of the Nazi Party? Without exception? They all had full-blown cases of possession with personality displacement? Even the teacher in B16’s school who helped him avoid attending Hitler Youth meetings?

The fact is that Fr. Amorth is an individual given to making sweeping statements that are not firmly grounded and that are subject to a credulous mindset that is too ready to see possession (full-blown or not).

How else can one explain his claim–in his book An Exorcist Tells His Story–to have performed thirty THOUSAND exorcisms in a nine year period? That’s nine exorcisms PER DAY for nine years–Sundays included!

If this claim is remotely accurate then the man is a walking exorcism factory.

It is simply impossible to reconcile this claim with the Church’s requirements for the performance of exorcisms, which include (among other things) diligent evaluation of the individuals to be exorcised to determine that they are not simply suffering from psychological illness.

One more recent report indicates that the number of exorcisms he has performed had risen to 50,000 as of 2001.

It is therefore very difficult to place much weight in claims made by Fr. Amorth on such matters.

Which left me scratching my head about one claim made in the article, that Pius XII attempted to have a “long-distance” exorcism performed on Adolph Hitler.

I couldn’t take Fr. Amorth’s word for this, of course, but I did some independent research, and it seems to be true. I’ll have more info on that when I can get it.

Oh, and I should mention something else about Fr. Amorth. He is often credited–as he is in the article–as “the Vatican’s chief exorcist” and (somewhat more colorfully) as “Benedict XVI’s ‘caster out of demons.'” This is not true.

There is no “chief exorcist” position at the Vatican. Fr. Amorth is a priest of the Diocese of Rome who happens to be one of a number of exorcists there. He is the most well-known and prominent of them, but this does not give him the position of “chief exorcist of the Vatican.”

MORE INFO ON FR. AMORTH FROM ED PETERS.

Be sure to read the sidebar, too.

MORE HERE.

Lesbian Couple & Baptism

A reader writes:

Recently my parish priest
baptized the child of a lesbian couple. Now, I haven’t spoken with him
yet, but I will. So for instance, I don’t know if the couple is
sexually intimate or even practicing Catholics. In any event, where
does the church stand on this issue? I’d like to know your thoughts
before I speak to my priest and then my bishop who I will also speak
with.

The relevant Church law is expressed in the following canon:

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Strictly speaking, it doesn’t matter whether the parents or guardians of the child are themselves Catholic. What matters is that the child will be brought up Catholic.

(This is something that has been relevant at various times in history. For example, I was reading an article a while back about some villagers in Indo-China who were themselves unwilling to become Christian but who were most anxious to have their children brought up to be Catholics.)

The question for your purposes is whether the clause I’ve highlighted in blue is fulfilled if the caretakers of the child are a lesbian couple.

It seems to me that this matter is not clear.

While it’s true that the individuals can take the necessary steps to raise the child as a Catholic so that the child comes to think of himself as a Catholic and so that he goes to Mass and the sacraments and even learns the basics of the faith, it nevertheless seems to me that there is an argument that the living arrangement of his caretakers of itself constitutes a fundamental barrier to the child receiving an authentically Catholic formation–not to mention what they’re likely to teach him about sexuality.

In fact, it seems to me that one could argue that the child would not, in fact, be brought up in the Catholic religion but in a heresy since the child would in all likelihood be brought up to doubt or deny the fact that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful–this point being contained in the deposit of faith (e.g., read Romans 1) and having been defined by the orginary and universal Magisterium of the Church, qualifying it as a point that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith and thus making its obstinate post-baptismal doubt or denial a heresy.

The child, as a child, would not be obstinately doubting or denying it (within the canonical meaning of "obstinate") by just taking his "parents" word for it, but one could nevertheless argue that the child was being raised in material heresy and not the Catholic religion.

On the other hand . . .

Rome hasn’t said that, and Rome baptizes the kids of all kinds of parents who are likely to raise their kids in material heresy.

Americans–who tend to read and apply the law very rigorously–are often shocked when they learn just how permissive Europeans are in applying the law regarding the above canon.

This is perhaps nowhere more clearly on display than in the Church’s documents regarding the pastoral care of Gypsies.

I’ve been meaning to blog about that–and will soon–but it’s stunning the pastoral concessions that are granted to Gypsies in the main document. It is clear that, while many Gypsies are nominally Catholic, the Church is perfectly willing to baptize their children even though they have moral certitude that the child will not be raised to participate in multiple sacraments. Yet the relevant dicastery has judged that helping Gypsies maintain at least some kind of Catholic identity, even if it is a gravely impaired one.

And the same goes for numerous non-Gypsy Europeans who happen to be pro-abort and pro-homosexual and who plan to raise their children to be the same. Their kids get baptized, too.

So based on European praxis, it seems that a person could well argue that "being raised in the Catholic religion" means only acquiring a minimal–one might even say nominal–Catholic identity, and this could be fulfilled by two lesbians promising to raise the child Catholic.

Thus the law seems to me not to be sufficiently clear on this point, and we could use a clarification from Rome.

The changing nature of society–as well as the dramatic weakening of Catholic identity in the developed world–is likely to force the Church at some point to clarify this and even to reconsider whether a foreseen minimal Catholic identity for the child is enough to warrant baptizing him.

In the meantime, as it is a doubtful point of law and a matter of significant pastoral concern, I would say that you are well within your rights to talk to your pastor and bishop about it and make your opinions (whatever they may be) known in a respectful manner.

What? No “Praise the Lord”s?

The current edition of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy Newsletter (not available online, sorry) has an article about a congress on promoting the liturgy in Africa that was held recently in Ghana. Normally this is the kind of article that I skip or skim, because local meetings of this nature usually have little information that is relevant to my work, but this one had a few interesting points.

A major topic of discussion at the congress was the inculturation of the liturgy in Africa, and there were nice things in the article about insisting on following the Church’s approved means of inculturating the liturgy, which (among other things) involves getting Rome’s approval on what you want to do. That was all fine (and what I would expect from an event conducted under the auspices of Cardinal Arinze, who is a total class act).

For example, one reflection that was offered at the conference was described as follows:

* Inculturation is not the fruit of hasty undertaking or solo effort but an organic process of assimilation that
involves the whole community under the action of God’s Spirit and the guidance of the Church’s
hierarchy. . . . Inculturation puts heavier demands on the Bishops’ Conference: deeper study of chosen cultural
elements, discussion, voting and submission to be approved by the Apostolic See by way of recognitio.

* It is important to follow the norms issued in this matter by the Apostolic See so that inculturation will
bear lasting fruit of faith and holiness. It is therefore important that the Church does not follow
momentary impulses and effervescent emotions of enthusiasts in this matter, under the notion that the
Spirit blows where he wills. There is the duty of the Church to discern the manifestation of the Spirit. The
Holy Spirit is a Spirit of order.

That sends a definite "follow the rules and don’t expect us to approve things that just at the moment happen t sound like good ideas" message.

There was also this cautionary note on the use of liturgical dance (which is permitted in some measure in African liturgy, though not in Europe, America, Australia, etc.):

*The introduction of dances in the liturgy in Africa does require careful discernment. There are many types
of dances in Africa. Only a dance which meets one of the reasons for the liturgy (adoration, praise,
thanksgiving, repentance, petition) need be considered. People do not come to Mass in order to be
entertained. Diocesan or Regional Liturgical Commissions and Monasteries can help in discerning dances
that are prayerful and fit for worship.

What struck me most, though, was a concluding note about a letter Cardinal Arinze had written:

The official report of the Congress was distributed to the Conferences of Bishops in Africa under cover of a letter
from Cardinal Arinze, dated July 11, 2006 (Prot. N. 746/05/L). In his cover letter, the Prefect added further
practical directives on relations with international translating committees, promotional of interdisciplinary studies,
the approval of inculturation initiatives by African Conference of Bishops, church buildings, vestments, elements
of adaptation, experimental texts, funeral ministers, and choirs.

The Prefect also listed a number of liturgical abuses, in regard to the introduction of non-liturgical elements into
the celebration of the Mass, the featuring of prominent persons in processions, the illicit use of Extraordinary
ministers, and inappropriate uses of the homily. In this regard, Cardinal Arinze noted: “Homilies should not be
too long. Fifteen minutes of a well-prepared homily is enough. It is an abuse to preach for 45 minutes, or to walk
about the church while preaching, or to punctuate the homily with shouts of “Alleluia” or “Praise the Lord” from
time to time.”

I was startled to hear about African priests doing 45 minute homilies! I’ve never heard one anywhere near that long here in America. I have, though, known of priests walking about the church (though not so much lately), and it’ll be interesting to see if the statement that this is an abuse gets made in a document pertaining to American liturgy.

I also found it striking that the Cardinal would regard puctuations of "Alleluia" and "Praise the Lord" to be abuses. While I’m not used to such things these days, back when I was a Protestant I was used to them and can see how they can fit with a dignified worship service. (In fact, when I was still Protestant but on my way to becoming Catholic and I heard a priest tell the congregation that they couldn’t just ignore the Church’s teaching on birth control, I had to restrain myself from saying, "Amen!") So I can see how a particular culture (like the Evangelical one I came from) could harmonize these interjections in a way that is not disruptive of the dignified tone of the liturgy.

Which is a long way of saying that I don’t think that such interjections are automatically an abuse.

Unless of course Rome promulgates or has promulgated a norm saying that they are (not having the text of the Cardinal’s letter, I can’t evaluate what force it may have; it may contain binding norms or it may not).

I do agree with one thing, though: "Alleluia" is an abuse. Intrinsically. All by itself. Whether it’s in the liturgy or not. The word is just wrong.

In Hebrew (the language the word comes from), it is quite clear that the word is Halleluia, with an H. It’s got an H (technically, a letter he, which is pronounced "hay") right on the front of it. Hallel is a real word in Hebrew (it means "praise"). Allel is not.

Even when you see the word in Greek, it’s got a rough breathing mark right (which is how Greek symbolizes the sound of the letter H) over the A, telling you to pronounce it Halleluia.

It’s just the lazy Latins who lost track of the H sound at some point, giving us the monstrous "Alleluia."

I cringe every time I hear that.

Whose Church Is It Anyway?

Recently TimJ wrote about the evil Take Back Our Church folks.

Now canonist Ed Peters weighs in with the canonical consequences that could ensue from their actions. Here’s a taste–which just to be coy I’ll keep just to him quoting a single canon:

1983 CIC 1374 states: "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict."

Intrigued? Then,

GET THE STORY.

Woo-Hoo! Two New Planets!

The International Astronomical Union, meeting last week, adopted an official definition of what constitutes a planet, with the result that we have two new planets: Ceres and "Xena"! Yippie!

Now, before you say to yourself, "What planet has he been on?", yes, yes, I know: Under the IAU definition these bodies–together with Pluto–are classified as "dwarf planets," rather than planets sans phrase, but dwarf planets are still planets, just as dwarf humans are still humans.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. 😛

Now, let’s talk about the definition they finally coughed up:

The IAU . . . resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

Footnotes:

[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
[2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories.
[3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects [SOURCE].

The condition that keeps Pluto, Ceres, and "Xena" from being planets sans phrase is condition 1c, which is that the body "has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."

That’s totally stupid.

Not only is it unacceptably vague (just how clear does the orbit have to be?), it also has nothing to do with the nature of an object. It has to do with the object’s relationship to other objects, and as I’ve already said, what an object is is more important than where it is if you want to talk about its nature. By including a relational term in the definition, the IAU seeks to establish "planet" as a partly natural, partly relational category, and that’s just scientifically inelegant.

(Incidentally, criterion 1a–about going around the sun–is another dumb relational term.)

What we should be trying to do here, in coming up with a definition for a planet, is try to capture the natural essence of those bodies which have come to be regarded as planets, and the only essential criteria that I can see for them is that they (a) don’t glow (no fusion) and (b) are big enough that their gravity causes them to be round.

Saying that they’ve cleared their orbit is superfluous. That means that you could have an object the size of Jupiter in an orbit filled with asteroids and deny it the status of a planet sans phrase on that basis. It would make the Jupiter-sized object a "dwarf planet" even though it drawfs the Earth!

Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!

In fact, some folks have argued that this situation is precisely the one that we’re in:

There continues to be much criticism regarding the final draft of the definition. For instance, the lead scientist on NASA’s robotic mission to Pluto, Dr Alan Stern, contends that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones either. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path. "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn’t be there," he added [SOURCE].

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, IAU! Jupiter as a "dwarf planet"!

Fortunately, I think this definition is likely to get revisted in the future. Not only is it scientifically gerrymandered, but

The orchestration of the final vote has come under criticism because of lack of participation due mainly to the time of the vote. The final vote was taken on the last day of the 10-day event after many had left or were preparing to leave. Over 2,700 astronomers attended the conference, but only 424 remained on the last day. There is also the issue of many astronomers who are unable to make the trip to Prague [SOURCE].

Once the broader membership of the IAU has had a chance to weigh in, a considerable fight may start and the issue may get revisited at a future convention.

Further, the inelegant nature of the definition may force itself upon the minds of current or future astronomers with sufficient force to force a reconsideration. Or further scientific discoveries may.

Let’s hope that next time they get it right: Figure out the essence of the object you’re talking about and go with that, regardless of what the conclusions are.

In the meantime, I’m happy to be living in a solar system with eleven planets: eight planets sans phrase and three dwarf planets.