Auctioning Off The Popemobile

No, not the car of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger that you heard so much about after the election of Pope Benedict XVI. Apparently, the only car Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II, ever owned is in litigation because a father and son are fighting over who it rightfully belongs to:

“The powder blue, four-door 1975 Ford Escort is expected to go for as much as $5 million but Jerome Rich says his son Jim has no right to sell it.

“Jim Rich obtained the keys to the car from the pontiff himself a decade ago after purchasing it through an Indiana auction house for $102,000, said lawyer Wade Joyner, who represents Jerome Rich.

“Jim Rich put the car on display under glass at his suburban Chicago restaurant but the establishment closed a year ago. He has said he now wants to auction the car on June 5 at the Mandalay Bay resort in Las Vegas to pay off debts owed his father.”

GET THE STORY.

Idea! Get a welder to split the car in half and then give it to the person who is willing to let the other have it.

Non-Infallible Teachings

A reader writes:

Is there such a thing as non-infallible church teaching?

Yes. In fact, as Cardinal Dulles points out in his book The Splendor Of Faith, most of the Church’s teachings are proposed non-infallibly.

If the Holy Father makes a statement in an encyclical or an apostolic letter is that considered infallible (for instance, the ordination of women is not possible).

Okay, this one isn’t so much a question as a sentence fragment. However, lemme answer what I think you’re asking: John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that it has already been definitively settled that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is not itself an infallible statement. That means that he could be wrong about it since he didn’t say it under the protection of inallibility. I don’t think that he was wrong. I think he was right and that it has been definitively (and thus infallibly) settled by the ordinary Magisterium, but the pope’s mention of this fact without engaging his infallibility–by definition–does not a mount to an infallible exercise of his Magisterium.

How about everything contained in the Catechism… is that all infallible teaching of the Church?

Nope. SEE HERE.

This question comes about because I read an article in Commonweal magazine written by Charles Curran. He stated that it’s ok to disagree with non-infallible Church teaching. I’m not really sure what would fall into that category. From time to time I like to annoy myself by reading articles from these liberal "Catholic" publications. It also helps me to prepare my arguments in defense of the Magesterium.

Okay, Charlie Curran ain’t a reliable guide to what is and is not theologically "okay." That’s why he was stripped of his ability to teach Catholic theology.

The Second Vatican Council noted that

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking [Lumen Gentium 25].

There can, however, be circumstances in which a church man (even the pope) speaks in a way that does not engage his Magisterial authority, in which case the faithful are not bound to adhere to what he says because he is not engaging his authority and thus not making what he says authoritative.

There are also cases in which a non-infallible utterance can be found so problematic that a theologian (or a member of the faithful) may find himself unable to give assent to it, in which case a different set of conditions kick in. These are most fully articulated in THIS INSTRUCTION FROM THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH AND SIGNED BY THEN-CARDINAL RATZINGER.

These facts indicate that it is not simply "okay" to dissent from non-infallible (but still authoritative) teachings of the Church.

As far as finding out what falls in the infallible category, I generally recomment getting a copy of Ludwig Ott’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOMA. Anything he lists with a theological note of sent. certa or above is probably infallible.

His Brain, Her Brain

A piece back I posted about a study of how newborn infants reacted to certain stimuli within the first day after birth. The study found that girl babies were more attracted to faces above their crimbs even at this very early age, while boy babies were more attractice to mobiles hanging above their cribs. This was congruent with the long-standing observation that in certain respects girls are more drawn to personal and boys to impersonal things, as when girls are more interested later in childhood in playing with dolls while boy are more interested in playing with cars.

Even though this study was one at only one day of age, an extreme "sex doesn’t matter" type might claim that it was nevertheless some form of covert socialization in the first day after birth that produced the difference.

This claim, of course, would be insane. Children one day old cannot be socialized–certainly not in so subtle a manner. The neurology the need for that kind of socialization just ain’t there yet.

But lest we leave a stone unturned, let’s try a similar experiment with vervet monkeys.

Only we don’t have to, ’cause someone already did.

EXCERPT:

Several intriguing behavioral studies add to the evidence that some sex differences in the brain arise before a baby draws its first breath. Through the years, many researchers have demonstrated that when selecting toys, young boys and girls part ways. Boys tend to gravitate toward balls or toy cars, whereas girls more typically reach for a doll. But no one could really say whether those preferences are dictated by culture or by innate brain biology.

To address this question, Melissa Hines of City University London and Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University turned to monkeys, one of our closest animal cousins. The researchers presented a group of vervet monkeys with a selection of toys, including rag dolls, trucks and some gender-neutral items such as picture books. They found that male monkeys spent more time playing with the "masculine" toys than their female counterparts did, and female monkeys spent more time interacting with the playthings typically preferred by girls. Both sexes spent equal time monkeying with the picture books and other gender-neutral toys.

Because vervet monkeys are unlikely to be swayed by the social pressures of human culture, the results imply that toy preferences in children result at least in part from innate biological differences. This divergence, and indeed all the anatomical sex differences in the brain, presumably arose as a result of selective pressures during evolution. In the case of the toy study, males–both human and primate–prefer toys that can be propelled through space and that promote rough-and-tumble play. These qualities, it seems reasonable to speculate, might relate to the behaviors useful for hunting and for securing a mate. Similarly, one might also hypothesize that females, on the other hand, select toys that allow them to hone the skills they will one day need to nurture their young.

GET THE STORY.

Incidentally, the "what baby monkeys like to play with" difference is only one of a number of interesting sex-based mental differences the article discusses–both among different kinds of animals and among humans.

The Theological Depth-Charge?

A reader writes:

No response required, Jimmy;

    I just wanted to thank you for your blog.  I’m a 30-something cradle-Catholic (five years old to orthodoxy).  Your site is a daily affirmation (shudder at the word) that I can be orthodox AND rant against the death of Trip Tucker (a death about which I am particularly bitter.)  The mix of apologetics, canon law, pop culture, and sci-fi (etc) on your site are a real pleasure.

    Anecdote: Also thought I’d mention that a friend and I recently partook of that drink touted by some as the Theological Depth-Charge (a shot of Benedict dropped into a pint of Heineken or other German beer.)  My buddy and I are highschool religion teachers up here in Canada and we recently went to a religious educator’s conference in the mountains (nice Rocky Mountain locale, too many leftists.)  One day we noted that we had yet to hear of our pontiff spoken of in any better terms that "Ratzinger" or more commonly, "Jospeh Ratzinger."   There was no respect there. 

So, we decided that we could somehow defend our pontiff by partaking of the Theological Depth-Charge (which we renamed the B-16… it works on so many levels!)  We marched down to the lounge and were dismayed to hear they had no Benedict, only B&B.  We forged on, using the B&B instead (an Ecumenical B-16.)

    The drink was foul (brandy in beer?  who’d’a thunk?) but we were triumphant, at least until my gut started to churn.  It was like our pontiff saying "Thanks, boys, but you know… there are consequences to what you do."  The next day we heard similar comments but, as we had found that the B-16 was a more rigorous experience than we’d expected, we chose to speak up instead.

I’m afraid that I haven’t heard of Benedict (the brandy, not the pope) or B&B (bed & breakfast?). Perhaps they are distinctly Canadian brands (or perhaps not; I’m ignorant of such things).

Was intrigued to hear of your unique idea for "defending" (in the sense of honoring or commemorating) our beloved holy father, though I tend to think y’all should go with the telepathic communique you got from him: In wartime or not, depth charges should be treated with great caution.

The Diet Of Worms

IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not pronounce "Diet of Worms" as it it was a new weight-loss fad involving nematodes. A "diet" is an assembly and "Worms" is a German place-name pronounced with a /v/ sound on the front of the word. "Diet of Vorms" is more how it sounds. Think: Frau Blucher!

Today–May 25, is the anniversary of the Edict of Worms, which was issued in 1521 against Martin Luther and his writings.

GET THE STORY.

Confirmation Age

A reader writes:

I think it’s canon 891 and 883 or there abouts, also CCC 1307 that talks to the Sacrament of Confirmaion.

It’s canon 891 that determines the age under universal law. (Canon 883 deals with another matters, and the CCC is not a legal text and so does not establish legal requirements.)

Here is what canon 891 provides:

The sacrament of confirmation is to be
conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference
of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the
judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise [SOURCE].

The reader asks:

Does the term "the age of discretion" as the reference point for receiving Confirmation mean that children should be confirmed at an early age (7 years old)?

Yes, as a general matter. (Compare CANON 11.)

How does that sync with many parish programs that have the child wait until a later age (teens in High School)?

See below.

Are they vaild programs?

Educational programs are not valid or invalid. I assume taht you mean: "Is it licit to administer the sacrament of confirmation to children only after they are in their teen years?" Yes, in the United States. See below.

 

Does the Church accually spell out a specific age for Confirmation?…in the Latin Rite?

No, it doesn’t.

The universal law of the Latin Church as found in the Code of Canon Law provides that the sacrament of confirmation, in general, be adminsitered at about the age of discretion, which is generally taken to be seven years old.

However, you will note that canon 891, quoted above, provides that the conference of bishops may determine a different age. In the United States, the conference of bishops has passed (and the Vatican has ratified) the following complementary norm:

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in accord with the
prescriptions of canon 891, hereby decrees that the Sacrament of
Confirmation in the Latin Rite shall be conferred between the age of
discretion and about sixteen years of age, within the limits determined
by the diocesan bishop and with regard for the legitimate exceptions
given in canon 891 [SOURCE].

So, presently in the United States, confirmation can be licitly administered at a wide variety of ages, dependent on the will of the diocesan bishop.

As an aside, it seems to me that this situation may not last. Given the current mobility of American society, folks move from one diocese to another all the time, making it very easy for individuals to "fall through the cracks" and not get confirmed. This creates a pastoral situation that may well be redressed by re-mandating a single age of confirmation at some point in the future.

Fun While Dieting

Now, I am not a medical authority, so I cannot recommend any particular diet plan, but in the last few months I have been trying to lose some weight.  My sister passed on to me a tip for watching one’s calories while eating out that has caused no end of laughter whenever we’ve used it.  And it works too!

Scenario:  You’ve ordered a standard meal — and restaurants tend to portion such meals to an adult male — and find that you’ve eaten enough to satisfy you.  You could ask the waiter to box it up for you to take home, but by the time you flag him down and he brings you a box you have finished eating the meal through picking at it.  Even if you manage to hold off and take home the leftovers, they are more likely to become your midnight snack rather than tomorrow’s lunch.  What do you do?

One solution:  Ruin the food. 

Yes, that’s right.  Make the food unpalatable.  After all, if you leave it on the plate the restaurant will throw it out anyway.  The staff won’t box it up and send it to the starving kids in China or even to the local food pantry.  It goes in the trash.  So, you might as well have fun with the food before it is disposed of.

For example, after seeing Revenge of the Sith Saturday night with my sister, we went to Denny’s for dessert.  We each ordered a chocolate sundae, not realizing that the portions were going to be huge.  (We could easily have shared one if we had known beforehand the size of the portions.)  So, when I ate all I knew I should eat, I picked up the pepper shaker, unscrewed the lid, and dumped some pepper into the remains of my sundae.  My sister did likewise to hers with sugar packets and table litter.  Voila!  The sundaes were no longer appetizing and we had a ball while depriving ourselves.

It’s especially fun when the wait staff notices what you have done.  One waiter actually missed a step when eyeing another dessert to which I’d added a liberal amount of salt.  When asked to explain — which has happened once or twice — the wait staff I’ve encountered have loved the idea and have said they’d be trying it too.

One caveat:  Not everyone will be impressed by your brilliance in happily destroying your leftovers.  I’ve had friends plead with me not to do it in their presence because they are either grossed-out or want my leftovers for themselves.  As long as they are willing to lay claim to the food and thus remove the temptation from me, I am more than happy to accommodate their more delicate sensibilities.

Feel free to share your own diet tricks in the combox.

Chilly Chili

In one of his recent posts, Jimmy made reference to cold pizza in such a way as to make one speculate that he appreciates the occasional refrigerated snack. I have nursed a private affinity for chilled foods for some years, but until now have never publicly acknowledged my secret.

Hello, my name is Tim, and I like cold food.

I’m not talking about things you would normally eat cold, like yogurt or deli meat. I’m talking about those things that you would normally heat up before consuming. The merits of cold fried chicken, of course, are well documented. That’s one that would fall into the category of socially accepted cold food. One could eat this without receiving weird looks from friends or family.

I am advocating more adventurous and creative dishes: cold mashed potatoes and gravy, cold chicken and rice casserole, or (my personal favorite) the cold spaghetti sauce sandwich. The latter has to be made with meat sauce, and the more meat the better. Vegetable-only spaghetti sauce just won’t hold together. It should also be  made with some good bread; leftover garlic toast or a hoagie roll work nicely. Steer away from the pasty white sandwich bread. The same can be done with cold chili.

Cold food has several advantages over warmed-up food: It is great when you are in a hurry, it requires no sauce pan or anything like that, and it will never FRY THE ROOF OF YOUR MOUTH as a result of being heated far beyond natural limits in a microwave oven. A piece of microwaved pizza can be a real health hazard, far hotter than anything served straight from a regular oven. Molten cheese behaves like napalm at those temperatures.

Now one thing I have noticed about cold foods: This seems to be a phenomenon associated with the x/y chromosome combo. In other words, it seems to be a guy thing. Often when indulging my cold-food jones, I am met with incredulous looks from the female members of the household, and remarks like "Aren’t you going to warm that up?", or "Put that on a plate, you’ll enjoy it more.". Obviously this is a pleasure that simply remains opaque to many bystanders.

I am no longer ashamed of my love for congealed beef stroganoff. If the French can have their vichyssoise, I am entitled to my wedge of macaroni and cheese or a quivering slice of chicken and dumplings.

Mm-m-m-m-m…

Annulment For Non-Catholic?

A reader writes:

A friend of mine is catholic.  He plans to marry a woman who is divorced from a man who abused her. 

Okay. She might have grounds of an annulment if the abuse is a product of a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the former husband about the nature of the marriage commitment.

She was married in a Baptist church and they don’t have annulments in the Baptist Church.

Wouldn’t matter if they did. The Church only honors its own annulments since nobody else applies the same standards that it does to this situation.

They have asked several priests and they say nothing can be done.  That seems wrong. 

It sure does.

If she were catholic and it is a marriage that would be given an annulment, shouldn’t the Church be able to grant some kind of annulment to her since her church won’t or at least recognize it somehow so they can be validly married? 

It certainly can do this. The mere fact that the lady in question is not a Catholic does not prevent her from having a Catholic marriage tribunal examine the marriage and determine whether or not it was valid. Catholic marriage tribunals hear the cases of divorced individuals seeking to marry Catholics all the time.

It’s hard for me to imagine that the priests they talk to were ignorant of this point, it is so common in parish life. My suspicion is that there was a misunderstanding of some kind–that the question wasn’t put to them in a manner that would elicit the desired information.

I suggest that she simply call a local parish, state that she is a non-Catholic hoping to marry a Catholic and that she needs to pursue the annulment process. They should be able to help her get the paperwork needed to begin this.

That being said, there are no guarantees that her first marriage really was null, or that it can proven to be null. As a result, she should not be making any kind of definite wedding plans (with the Catholic gentleman or anyone else) until it can be shown that she is free to marry. Christ was rather strong on this point (Mark 10:11-12).

Hope this helps, and God bless!