Rehnquist v. O'Connor

Two stories floated side by side at CNN:

Senators Urge [Sandra Day] O’Connor To Reconsider Retirement

[William] Rehnquist Silences Retirement Speculation

In the first story, four notoriously pro-abortion senators (although Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has a "mixed record" despite her EMILY List recommendation) have urged Justice O’Connor not to retire, piously asserting that "You possess moderation, dignity and integrity, and have demonstrated the highest standards of legal excellence" and urging that President Bush name her as Chief Justice Rehnquist’s replacement:

"In a copy of the letter obtained by CNN, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-California, Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, urged the 75-year-old jurist to return to the court as the chief justice of the United States to avoid what could be a messy confirmation fight over her successor.

"’As United States senators with the constitutional responsibility of "advice and consent," we would strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as chief justice,’ the letter said."

Uh huh.  And had John Kerry won election in 2004 would these senators still recommend that O’Connor be named Chief Justice or would they be clamoring for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

In any event, Chief Justice Rehnquist has apparently tired of the Retirement Watch surrounding him lately and has stated that, despite health difficulties, he intends to continue in office as long as he can:

"’I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement,’ Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. ‘I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.’"

Point of protocol:  As a side note, and to sound off on a pet peeve of mine, the Chief Justice’s title is not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."  It is Chief Justice of the United States.

<Commercial>Get Catholic Answers’ booklet Supreme Injustice: The Looming Disaster in America’s Highest Court written by your gracious blog host, Jimmy Akin.</commercial>

Rehnquist v. O’Connor

Two stories floated side by side at CNN:

Senators Urge [Sandra Day] O’Connor To Reconsider Retirement

[William] Rehnquist Silences Retirement Speculation

In the first story, four notoriously pro-abortion senators (although Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has a "mixed record" despite her EMILY List recommendation) have urged Justice O’Connor not to retire, piously asserting that "You possess moderation, dignity and integrity, and have demonstrated the highest standards of legal excellence" and urging that President Bush name her as Chief Justice Rehnquist’s replacement:

"In a copy of the letter obtained by CNN, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-California, Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, urged the 75-year-old jurist to return to the court as the chief justice of the United States to avoid what could be a messy confirmation fight over her successor.

"’As United States senators with the constitutional responsibility of "advice and consent," we would strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as chief justice,’ the letter said."

Uh huh.  And had John Kerry won election in 2004 would these senators still recommend that O’Connor be named Chief Justice or would they be clamoring for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

In any event, Chief Justice Rehnquist has apparently tired of the Retirement Watch surrounding him lately and has stated that, despite health difficulties, he intends to continue in office as long as he can:

"’I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement,’ Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. ‘I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.’"

Point of protocol:  As a side note, and to sound off on a pet peeve of mine, the Chief Justice’s title is not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."  It is Chief Justice of the United States.

<Commercial>Get Catholic Answers’ booklet Supreme Injustice: The Looming Disaster in America’s Highest Court written by your gracious blog host, Jimmy Akin.</commercial>

B16's First Encyclical

In case y’all haven’t heard, B16 is writing his first encyclical.

Actually, he’s been writing it for some time (as one could guess), but he’s reportedly using his current vacation to work more on it. Maybe it’ll be finished by the time he gets back. (One can hope, anyway.)

It’s usually only a few months after a pope takes office that his first encyclical comes out, and it’s usually a sketch of how he plans to conduct his pontificate.

Not much is known about what B16 is writing, but

GET THE STORY.

B16’s First Encyclical

In case y’all haven’t heard, B16 is writing his first encyclical.

Actually, he’s been writing it for some time (as one could guess), but he’s reportedly using his current vacation to work more on it. Maybe it’ll be finished by the time he gets back. (One can hope, anyway.)

It’s usually only a few months after a pope takes office that his first encyclical comes out, and it’s usually a sketch of how he plans to conduct his pontificate.

Not much is known about what B16 is writing, but

GET THE STORY.

"Standing Up" For An Invalid Wedding

A reader writes:

My brother  was raised catholic and has received 4 sacraments. He is now a non practicing catholic, but has not left the Church by any formal decree. he is getting married in a month in a protestant church and has asked me, my wife and our 3 children to stand up for him in the wedding. His future wife was baptized in the catholic church, but was raised in a somewhat anti-catholic family. I know his wedding is invalid. What does the Church say or teach on family members participating in an invalid wedding?

Present ecclesiastical law does not specifically address the situation, which means that we have to fall back on the principles of moral theology to help us settle the question.

It seems to me that "standing up for" someone at a wedding involves one in the ceremony in a formal way that goes beyond merely attending the wedding.

I cannot recommend attending a wedding that is known to be invalid. To do so lends one’s presence to a false union and thus constitutes an offense against the truth. It sends the message to the couple that either their union is valid, when it is not, or that what they are doing doesn’t really matter–otherwise you wouldn’t be there.

Since I can’t recommend attending an invalid wedding, I also cannot recommend becoming formally involved in it, as standing up for a member of the couple would imply.

Involving one’s children in such a situation also could send them a very bad message since, even though they may not understand about valid or invalid marriages right now, they will come to understand them with time (if they are properly educated in the faith, at any rate), and at that point they will remember that their parents involved them in such a ceremony.

You say that your brother has not "left the Church by any formal decree." I should point out that a decree is not necessary. For the wedding to be valid, your brother and his fiancee would have had to defect from the Church by a formal act (such as formally joining another church with the intent of no longer being Catholic), but it doesn’t have to be by the issuing of a decree. I’d therefore ask them more about their current religious status before concluding for certain that the marriage is invalid.

However, if the circumstances of the wedding are as you describe, I could not recommend that you or your family participate in it. I know that it would be hard to refuse your brother’s request, and I would explain to him as gently and lovingly as possible that you can’t do it because you care about him and need to be honest with him about the situation.

Wish I had better news, but I hope this helps.

20

“Standing Up” For An Invalid Wedding

A reader writes:

My brother  was raised catholic and has received 4 sacraments. He is now a non practicing catholic, but has not left the Church by any formal decree. he is getting married in a month in a protestant church and has asked me, my wife and our 3 children to stand up for him in the wedding. His future wife was baptized in the catholic church, but was raised in a somewhat anti-catholic family. I know his wedding is invalid. What does the Church say or teach on family members participating in an invalid wedding?

Present ecclesiastical law does not specifically address the situation, which means that we have to fall back on the principles of moral theology to help us settle the question.

It seems to me that "standing up for" someone at a wedding involves one in the ceremony in a formal way that goes beyond merely attending the wedding.

I cannot recommend attending a wedding that is known to be invalid. To do so lends one’s presence to a false union and thus constitutes an offense against the truth. It sends the message to the couple that either their union is valid, when it is not, or that what they are doing doesn’t really matter–otherwise you wouldn’t be there.

Since I can’t recommend attending an invalid wedding, I also cannot recommend becoming formally involved in it, as standing up for a member of the couple would imply.

Involving one’s children in such a situation also could send them a very bad message since, even though they may not understand about valid or invalid marriages right now, they will come to understand them with time (if they are properly educated in the faith, at any rate), and at that point they will remember that their parents involved them in such a ceremony.

You say that your brother has not "left the Church by any formal decree." I should point out that a decree is not necessary. For the wedding to be valid, your brother and his fiancee would have had to defect from the Church by a formal act (such as formally joining another church with the intent of no longer being Catholic), but it doesn’t have to be by the issuing of a decree. I’d therefore ask them more about their current religious status before concluding for certain that the marriage is invalid.

However, if the circumstances of the wedding are as you describe, I could not recommend that you or your family participate in it. I know that it would be hard to refuse your brother’s request, and I would explain to him as gently and lovingly as possible that you can’t do it because you care about him and need to be honest with him about the situation.

Wish I had better news, but I hope this helps.

20

Cannon Fires Cultural Shot Across the Bow

Ncannon_1Plato said "Let me write the music for the country, and I care not who writes the laws.".

Musician Nick Cannon has written a song and made a video that is not just open to a pro-life interpretation, but is unmistakeably, powerfully and movingly pro-life. It is called Can I Live?. In the song and the video, his spirit travels back in time to the day his mother went to an abortion mill and almost took his life. He pleads with her to think about what she is doing, and she literally RUNS out of the clinic and into a new life as a mother.

It is a stunning accomplishment, and not just in a spiritual and artistic sense; the video is ranked #2 on BET (Black Entertainment Television). Given the kind of amoral stuff I often see on BET, this is a very good thing.

Catholic Exchange has an article on the song, with lyrics and a link to go and watch the video.

I don’t know much about Mr. Cannon’s music outside of  Can I Live?, but he has clearly set the bar very high now, both for himself and other artists. I’m going to buy the song, and possibly the album, after I check out the rest of the material.

Happy Rosetta Stone Day!

Rosetta1The chunk o’rock to the left is The Rosetta Stone (Dum! Dum! Dum!).

It was found today–July 15–back yonder in the year 1799 by Napoleon DynamiteBonaparte–well, actually by one of his men.

Now, thing is: The Rosetta Stone was instrumental in helping us figure out how to read Egyptian. Jean-Francois Champollion (an old, dead French dude who was then a young, alive French dude) deciphered hieroglyphics using help from the stone.

He was able to do this because the rock contains engravings of the same text in Greek, demotic script (the kind of script used by ordinary Egyptian folks in ancient times), and hieroglyphics (the more sacred way the Egyptian language was written). Since Greek was a known language, it was possible to figure out what the text as a whole said in the other two scripts.

YEE-HAW!

Ain’t linguistic discovery a hoot!

So anyway, now that the Rosetta Stone has been cracked (no pun intended, though look at the edges), if you want to learn hieroglyphics yourself, SEE HERE.

Also, GET THE STORY.