Remember The Alamo!

Alamo March 6, 1836: The final massacre at the Battle of the Alamo happened.

Those who died in or shortly after the massacre included:

  • Lt. Col. William Travis (commander of Texas regular army forces)
  • Jim Bowie (leader of the militia forces)
  • Davy Crockett (former congressman)

The massacre of the Alamo inspired Texican forces as they continued to fight for their independence. The battle was memorialized at the Battle of San Jacinto (the last battle of the revolution) with Gen. Sam Houston’s cry "Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!"

REMEMBER THE ALAMO.

REMEMBER GOLIAD.

Marriage Involvement 3

A reader writes:

Ok, so to combine a couple of questions you answered recently on your blog:

I’ve got a Catholic friend who is cohabitating in Germany. In Germany, you have to have a civil ceremony before you have a church ceremony. Usually (he tells me) this is done a few hours before the church ceremony, so it’s no big deal. In his instance, they had a civil ceremony several months ahead. They do, however, still intend to have a Catholic wedding.

Assuming, fairly safely, that the German Catholic Church is going to go through with this although they are living together, is the marriage licit? Am I required to forego attending?

Assuming that they have been having conjugal relations in the interim between the civil and ecclesiastical weddings, they have been sinning.

If they repent and go to confession before their ecclesiastical wedding then they will not be in a state of sin at the time that occurs and the wedding will be licit (in conformity with the law).

If they do not repent and go to confession before their ecclesiastical wedding then they will (presumably) be in a state of sin at the time it occurs and the wedding will be illicit (not in conformity with the law) but it will be nevertheless valid (real).

I cannot recommend that folks attend weddings that are invalid as their witness would testify to something that is false (i.e., that this is a valid marriage). However, attendance at a wedding that is merely illicit (not celebrated fully in conformity with the law) is an entirely different matter.

If God honors the wedding such that he brings about a valid marriage as a result of it then, whatever other problems there may be with its celebration, it seems to me that the basic threshold has been crossed in terms of attendance. By showing up, your presence testifies to what God is doing (bringing about a real marriage), and so I can recommend that people show up in such situations (assuming they would otherwise attend).

The parties may be in a state of sin at the time of their wedding, but that’s the way it is wit tons of people–and always has been. God still honors the wedding by "showing up" and bringing about the union of the couple ("What God has joined together . . . "), therefore it’s okay for you to show up, too.

125?

125 The human lifespan seems to cap out at about 120.

Though there have been improvements in the human lifespan made in the last century or so due to the advent of modern medicine, these have tended to shift only the average lifespan upwards–not the maximum lifespan.

Much of the shift is due to improving the chance that infants will not die soon after birth. Even two hundred years ago, people who made it out of infancy tended to live almost as long as the average person does today, so the average lifespan of post-infants hasn’t shifted that much.

The maximum lifespan hasn’t really changed: Humans just don’t tend to live past 120.

That fact has caused many to speculate that there is a "death gene" that prevents us from living longer. If our deaths were simply caused by minor problems building up over time ("wear & tear") then we’d expect to see modern medicine extending not only the average lifespan but also the maximum lifespan.

It hasn’t.

This raises the possibility that we may one day find and be able to switch off the "death gene"–if there is one–in which case we may be able to break the 120 barrier.

But one woman may have already done so.

Reports are that Maria Olivia da Silva, a native of Brazil, is 125 years old.

I don’t know if this is accurate or not, but if so, maybe she has a defective death gene.

GET THE STORY.

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who e-mailed.)

Changing The Law Of Abstinence

A reader writes:

Jimmy, what is the best way to explain to a fallen away Catholic who is troubled about why it is O.K. to now eat meat on Fridays when years ago you would go to hell for eating meat on Fridays.

I would point out several things:

  1. Human law often interacts with divine law in a particular way whereby human law specifies particular actions that will help accomplish the goals laid out in divine law.
  2. For example, divine law would require that, under normal circumstances, we behave in a way that we are not a danger to ourselves or others. This requirement applies across the situations we encounter in life, including driving an automobile.
  3. To facilitate the goal of driving in a safe manner (as required by divine law), human law creates certain mandates to facilitate this goal, such as having everybody drive on the same side of the road.
  4. Which side of the road it is varies from country to country. It doesn’t matter which side is picked (in America it’s the right side; in the UK, it’s the left side) as long as everybody drives on that side when they are in that country.
  5. If a country wanted, it could change which side of the road people drive on, say from the left to the right. Before the change it would be a sin to drive on the right side of the road because it would be dangerous in the extreme to do so, but after the change it would be a sin not to drive on the right side of the road.
  6. Something similar to this applies to the case of penance. The Church teaches that all of the faithful are obligated–and gravely obligated–to do penance for their sins by divine law.
  7. It therefore has established certain specific requirements to help people fulfill divin law in this regard. These include the practice of fast and abstinence on various days of the year.
  8. That one is fasting or abstaining on any particular day is not of itself important, the same way that driving on a particular side of the road is not of itself important. What is important is that the community is organized in such a way that the larger goals of divine law (behaving in a safe manner, doing penance for sins) are facilitated.
  9. With changes of time and culture, the Church has recognized the need to adapt its penitential practice to varying needs. When everyone in Europe was Catholic and shared similar diets and economic conditions, having a law like mandatory Friday abstinence for everyone made more sense.
  10. But today the Church includes people on every continent, who live in different cultures, with different diets and economic conditions.
  11. As a result, the Church has allowed the bishops’ conferences to make their own best judgment about how the Church’s pentitential practice should be applied in their country. If the bishops’ conference feels that a variance from the universal norm is warranted for their people, they can request a variance from the Vatican.
  12. The universal norm is still that Catholics are to abstain from meat on Fridays (all Fridays of the year), but the American bishops’ conference judged that a more restricted program of abstinence (only Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the the Fridays of Lent) would work best for Catholics here in America. They requested a variance from the universal norm and the Vatican granted it. Thus here in America there are a smaller number of days on which abstinence is required.
  13. The situation with regard to abstinence is thus similar to the situation with driving laws. It doesn’t matter of itself which days you do penance on or which side of the road you drive on. The important thing is that you obey the laws of the land that you are in.
  14. If the law says to abstain from meat on some days and not others, that’s what you are obliged to do. If the law says to drive on one side of the road and not the other, that’s what you are obliged to do. It is a sin to violate those requirements.
  15. If the law changes then your obligations change. But to knowingly and deliberately violate the law when it is in force is, by definition, a transgression.
  16. A Catholic who knowingly and deliberately ate meat on a normal Friday before the law changed in the U.S. and who didn’t have an excusing cause was knowingly and deliberately spitting on the requirement to do penance in the way the Church required and thus on the authority that Jesus gave the Church (the Church having been given the power to bind and loose by Christ himself). A person who eats meat on a normal Friday after the law changed is not doing this.
  17. In the first case, a person is defying not only the obligation to do penance but also the authority of Jesus Christ himself as exercised through his Church. In the second case, a person is complying with the obligation to do penance (assuming he does penance when he is required to do so) and with the authority of Jesus Christ.
  18. The change of circumstances totally changes the moral character of the act. While it’s physical character (the eating of meat) may be the same, its moral character (defying one’s grave obligations) is totally different.
  19. In the same way, a person in the US who drove on the left side of the road at a time this was illegal would be gravely defying his obligations (to drive safely and to obey the law of the land), but if the law changed then though the physical character of his act (driving on the left) would be the same, the moral character of it would be completely different.

Hope this helps!

A Comment-Requesting Request

The other day I posted a request for folks who send me news stories to blog to please be sure to include a link to the story to make it easier on me to point people to the original source.

I’d like to make another request that I’ve been thinking about for the last couple of days. It also would make it easier for me to respond to questions folks have. Here’s the situation:

  1. Sometimes in the comboxes people will raise an issue and say "maybe Jimmy can address this."
  2. I see most of the comments that get posted (though a few get away from me), and so I (usually) see these requests and make a mental note to respond, BUT–
  3. I usually can’t compose a response at the time. There are only certain hours of the day I have free to actually compose posts (though I have more liberty in reading what people are saying or posting my own comments).
  4. Therefore, I end up forgetting either the request itself or where it is located. As a result, despite my best intentions, I end up not responding.

Therefore . . .

If you raise something in the comments box that you’d like me to respond to, could you send me a quick e-mail and do one of two things:

  1. Include a link to the comment (which you could get in the Recent Comments sidebar), or
  2. Paste the text of the comment into the e-mail so I’ll have the text of the request handy.

Thanks much! This should make it much easier for me to respond to such requests, it being easier for me to keep track of what’s in my (single) inbox than in (numerous) comboxes.

The Gravity of Cohabitation

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy,

Didn’t want to post this question in the comment box in light of rule #20 —

Regarding cohabitation without conjugal relations — is this a mortal sin in of itself, or a near occasion of sin?  I had thought the latter, but I’m really unsure..

Don’t worry. This wouln’t be a Rule 20 violation. It’s just a question.

The moral disorder of cohabitation is twofold:

1) It puts the parties (assuming they are normal heterosexuals who are not closely related to each other) in the proximate occasion of sin. Depending on the degree of temptation they experience, this evil is more or less grave. If (theoretically speaking) there is zero temptation then there is no proximity to the occasion of sin and thus (theoretically) no evil in this regard. On the other hand, if the temptation to physical or mental unchastity is grave then the evil in this regard is grave.

2) It can be the cause of scandal. The example that the couple sets may lead others to suppose that what they are doing (living together) or what they are perceived as doing (having conjugal relations outside of marriage) are morally licit–or sufficiently morally licit that others are more inclined to do the same thing(s). The gravity of the evil in this case is determined by the likelihood and the intensity of the scandal that may result (e.g., how many people will be affected by the couple’s example, how likely it is that they will be tempted to do something they shouldn’t, and what precisely that is–whether it is cohabiting or having conjugal relations, which may lead to STDs or pregnancy, which may lead to contraception or abortion, etc., etc., etc.)

MSM Misses Major Story!

Here’s something that happens sometimes:

  1. You got to Drudge or another Alt-Media news source (e.g., a blog) that provides links to stories on MSM sources.
  2. One particular link is really intriguing.
  3. You click it to get to the story on the other side of the link.
  4. You find out that the headline, and most of the story, is not at all what was suggested by the link.
  5. What’s happened is that the linker picked something out of the story that he considered the most important point, even though it was buried in a longer piece.
  6. You agreed with him: This was the most important point. So you’re disappointed that the whole story isn’t about it.

This is happening more and more, and it’s a reflection of a new Internet reality: The MSM is no longer in charge of headlines.

Sure, they are in charge of the headlines that they give stories on their own sites. But they’re not in charge of the headlines given to the same stories when they are linked on other sites.

TAKE THIS STORY, FOR EXAMPLE.

The MSM headline for it is "Dearborn resident helped terror group." As it’s written, it’s about a Middle Eastern man who lives in Dearborn, Michigan who has admitted to helping Hezbollah and who has now gone to jail.

That’s not the real story, though.

The real story is buried toward the end of the piece:

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Kourani bribed a Mexican consular official in Beirut to get a visa to travel to Mexico. Kourani and a traveling companion then paid another man in Mexico to be smuggled across the southern U.S. border Feb. 4, 2001, the government said.

WAIT A COTTON-PIKKIN’ MINNIT!

We have VERIFIED PROOF that terrorists (like this yahoo) have been sneaking across the Mexican border???

THAT’S the story!!!

People have been concerned about this for a long time, but if we’ve actually CAUGHT somebody who DID it, THAT’S the fact that need to be trumpeted from the housetops!

It’s what needs to go at the top of the "inverted pyramid" that journalists are supposed to use in writing their stories (whereby the most important fact is mentioned first, then the second most important fact, then the third, and so on).

Drudge got it right when he headlined this story as terrorists sneaking across the southern border.

The MSM missed the REAL story in trying to slavishly viewing these events through "the local angle."

JAPAN: Maybe We Should Build A Moonbase?

Japan is thinking about building a moon base.

GET THE STORY.

I’m kind of apprehensive, though.

Sounds too much to me like the beginning of Gamera vs. Zigra.

What will be interesting to see is what happens when several nations have bases on the moon and we start using its resources and things get . . . territorial. The Antartica treaty may make a useful parallel for a lunar exploitation treaty for a piece, but then things will get . . . competative.