More On JPII’s New Book
ABC On UFOs
UFO researchers frequently complain that they can’t get the MSM to cover their story.
True.
Normally, they can’t.
Of if they do the coverage is lousy.
Well, tonight ABC news is doing a two-hour special on UFOs, hosted by Peter Jennings.
I’m betting that they’ll have some people telling interesting tales, but they ain’t gonna have a grey alien walk out in front of the cameras (though that likely would only bring Col. Carter out of the woodwork to debunk it). They’ll just end with the typical "We didn’t prove anything, but it makes ya think, don’t it?" ending–just like an episode of the X-Files.
Formal Acts Of Defection
A reader writes:
I’m still confused about the post HERE. What constitutes a formal act of leaving the church? I have friends who do not consider themselves to be Catholic anymore and attend another type of Christian service or are not attending any type of service (but are honestly searching for truth). In either case, is their marriage valid?
This is a matter that hasn’t been fully clarified. The 1983 Code of Canon Law allowed an exemption from the requirement of observing the Catholic form of marriage for Catholics who had left the Church by a formal act of defection. This was a new provision in the law, but unfortunately the Code didn’t go on to define what is required for such an act. Thus there is some debate about particular acts of defection, but the following seem reasonable:
- The act must involve true defection–that is, a person determining that he is no longer to be considered a member of the Catholic Church. (Joining another church under the belief that one could be a member of two churches at once would not count.)
- The act must be formal. There must be a moment in time when the individual performs some kind of formal act, such as being baptized in another church or sending a bishop a letter of resignation from the Church. (Just starting to attend another church or falling out of the habit of attending the Catholic Church does not count.)
- As a juridic act, it must be a fully human act (e.g., one not done due under duress or by a person not in command of his faculties).
- Also as a juridic act, it must be done by one capable of placing a juridic act, which leaves out minors.
Unfortunately, the law isn’t clear on this point. At some stage, I suspect that we’ll have an authentic interpretation to clear it up (if the recently-released instruction Dignitas Connubii doesn’t clear it up [my copy is still in the mail]).
John Paul II Back In Hospital
Prayers requested.
Gospel Skits
A reader writes:
I’m in a kind of liturgical bind right now. My parish wants to do a ‘Gospel skit’ for the Scrutiny Gospel. I am opposed to this, but everyone else seems to think it okay (including my pastor).
The text of the Gospel will not be read at all. There will be a paraphrased narration read by a non-ordained lector (they wanted me to be one of the narrators–I declined). Actors will be playing the different characters in the Gospel silently while the narration occurs. They will not be reading any parts of the Gospel.
How should I respond to this?
First, here’s what canon law says about the observance of the Church’s liturgical books:
Canon 846 §1
The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them.
One of the Church’s liturgical book (in fact, it’s main liturgical book) is the Roman Missal. The Roman Missal comprises the Sacramentary, the Lectionary, and the Book of the Gospels. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) contains the core instructions for celebrating Mass. The GIRM that is currently in force states:
57. In the readings, the table of God’s word is prepared for the faithful, and the riches of the Bible are opened to them. Hence, it is preferable to maintain the arrangement of the biblical readings, by which light is shed on the unity of both Testaments and of salvation history. Moreover, it is unlawful to substitute other, non-biblical texts for the readings and responsorial Psalm, which contain the word of God.
59. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.
60. The reading of the Gospel is the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. The Liturgy itself teaches that great reverence is to be shown to it by setting it off from the other readings with special marks of honor: whether the minister appointed to proclaim it prepares himself by a blessing or prayer; or the faithful, standing as they listen to it being read, through their acclamations acknowledge and confess Christ present and speaking to them; or the very marks of reverence are given to the Book of the Gospels.
In view of this, the proposed skit in your parish is prohibited on several counts:
-
The text of the Gospel cannot be paraphrased. The Lectionary and Book of the Gospels are liturgical books and therefore must be observed strictly, with no additions, deletions, or substitutions. Thus, no paraphrasing. To construct a paraphrase of the Gospel amounts to the creation of a non-biblical text that also falls afoul of the GIRM.
-
The pantomiming of the Gospel also represents an addition to what is called for in the liturgical books and is therefore disallowed. Further, it detracts from the reverence due to the Gospel, which is stressed in the GIRM.
America's Lord High Chancellor
It’s so sad that he’s like to have to retire soon because of his ill-health. I hope y’all will pray for him, that (whether on the Court or off) God will give him healing and the strength he needs to get through this time.
I wanted to just do a tribute post to him right now, while he’s still on the Court.
Like I said, he’s so cool.
First, he’s an originalist (the correct legal school of hermeutics and the only one that honors the democratic process).
Second, he was one of the two votes against The EVIL Decision in 1973 (the other was ex-football player-turned-Supreme Court Justice Byron "Whizzer" White).
Third, and most important, he’s a Gilbert & Sullivan fan!
In fact, he’s incorporated his fandom of G & S into Supreme Court tradition:
Rehnquist also created a unique robe for himself as Chief Justice in 1994. It has four golden bars on each sleeve. In the past, Chief Justices had not dressed differently than any of the Associate Justices. Rehnquist’s robe was modeled after a robe he had seen in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta Iolanthe, first staged in London in 1882. The costume which inspired Chief Justice Rehnquist, an acknowledged Gilbert and Sullivan fan, is worn by the Lord Chancellor, a character called upon to settle a dispute among a colony of fairies [SOURCE].
Yes!
Iolanthe (eye-oh-lan-theee) is one of the best G & S light operas. It has, in the judgment of some, the most beautiful score of any of the duo’s works. The libretto is witty. The premise is absurd. The climax is moving. And the ending is so over-the-top that it must have made a bunch of British Lords’ ears turn red. Oh yeah, and there are loads of jokes strewn along the path, and it has one of the two most amazing songs Gilbert ever wrote the lyrics for (this one being a strung-together collection of common sayings that he makes all fit together and rhyme).
The story focuses on the case of a young Arcadian shepherd named Strephon who has an unusual problem: Having a human father and a fairy mother (Iolanthe), he’s half mortal and half fairy. He’s a fairy down to the waist, but his legs are mortal. He’s also in love with a beautiful (mortal) maiden named Phyllis, who happens to be a Ward of Chancery (i.e., an orphan under the care of the court).
Enter England’s Lord High Chancellor (who, in U.K. government is, among other things, the head of their judiciary). In Iolanthe, the Lord High Chancellor himself has an unusual problem:
And every one who’d marry a Ward
Must come to me for my accord,
And in my court I sit all day,
Giving agreeable girls away,With one for him–and one for he–
And one for you–and one for ye–
And one for thou–and one for thee–
But never, oh, never a one for me!Which is exasperating for
A highly susceptible Chancellor!
Knowing the character of Iolanthe’s Lord High Chancellor from my own Gilbert & Sullivan fanboy-ism, I get such a kick out of the idea of Chief Justice Rehnquist–America’s Lord High Chancellor–would break with Supreme Court tradition to model his own robe after the character from Iolanthe.
What a cool guy!
I hope the next chief justice keeps up the tradition.
America’s Lord High Chancellor
William Rehnquist is so cool.
It’s so sad that he’s like to have to retire soon because of his ill-health. I hope y’all will pray for him, that (whether on the Court or off) God will give him healing and the strength he needs to get through this time.
I wanted to just do a tribute post to him right now, while he’s still on the Court.
Like I said, he’s so cool.
First, he’s an originalist (the correct legal school of hermeutics and the only one that honors the democratic process).
Second, he was one of the two votes against The EVIL Decision in 1973 (the other was ex-football player-turned-Supreme Court Justice Byron "Whizzer" White).
Third, and most important, he’s a Gilbert & Sullivan fan!
In fact, he’s incorporated his fandom of G & S into Supreme Court tradition:
Rehnquist also created a unique robe for himself as Chief Justice in 1994. It has four golden bars on each sleeve. In the past, Chief Justices had not dressed differently than any of the Associate Justices. Rehnquist’s robe was modeled after a robe he had seen in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta Iolanthe, first staged in London in 1882. The costume which inspired Chief Justice Rehnquist, an acknowledged Gilbert and Sullivan fan, is worn by the Lord Chancellor, a character called upon to settle a dispute among a colony of fairies [SOURCE].
Yes!
Iolanthe (eye-oh-lan-theee) is one of the best G & S light operas. It has, in the judgment of some, the most beautiful score of any of the duo’s works. The libretto is witty. The premise is absurd. The climax is moving. And the ending is so over-the-top that it must have made a bunch of British Lords’ ears turn red. Oh yeah, and there are loads of jokes strewn along the path, and it has one of the two most amazing songs Gilbert ever wrote the lyrics for (this one being a strung-together collection of common sayings that he makes all fit together and rhyme).
The story focuses on the case of a young Arcadian shepherd named Strephon who has an unusual problem: Having a human father and a fairy mother (Iolanthe), he’s half mortal and half fairy. He’s a fairy down to the waist, but his legs are mortal. He’s also in love with a beautiful (mortal) maiden named Phyllis, who happens to be a Ward of Chancery (i.e., an orphan under the care of the court).
Enter England’s Lord High Chancellor (who, in U.K. government is, among other things, the head of their judiciary). In Iolanthe, the Lord High Chancellor himself has an unusual problem:
And every one who’d marry a Ward
Must come to me for my accord,
And in my court I sit all day,
Giving agreeable girls away,With one for him–and one for he–
And one for you–and one for ye–
And one for thou–and one for thee–
But never, oh, never a one for me!Which is exasperating for
A highly susceptible Chancellor!
Knowing the character of Iolanthe’s Lord High Chancellor from my own Gilbert & Sullivan fanboy-ism, I get such a kick out of the idea of Chief Justice Rehnquist–America’s Lord High Chancellor–would break with Supreme Court tradition to model his own robe after the character from Iolanthe.
What a cool guy!
I hope the next chief justice keeps up the tradition.
Indulgences Roundup
A reader writes:
Jimmy – in reflecting on the recent Plenary Indulgence given by the Holy Father this year, and in reading some Catholic source books on Indulgences, there are a few points on which I’m unclear. I’m wondering if you can help me.1. An Indulgence for the living can only be had by the one performing the indulgenced act. In other words, I can’t ask for an Indulgence, Plenary or Partial, for another living person (other than myself). True?
TRUE.
2. An Indulgence, being a species of sacramental, works "ex opere operantis"; in other words, its efficacy is dependent on the subjective disposition of the one performing the indulgenced act(s). Is this true?
TRUE. AS THE CHURCH’S LAW IS PRESENTLY CONFIGURED, INDULGENCES WORK EX OPERE OPERANTIS, THOUGH IT ISN’T 100% CLEAR THAT THEY ARE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS SACRAMENTALS. THEY APPEAR TO FIT THE GENERAL DEFINITION OF SACRAMENTALS, BUT ARE NOT LISTED AS EXAMPLES OF SACRAMENTALS HERE.
2.a Corollary question: do all voluntary acts of satisfaction, as ways of obtaining grace, work "ex opere operantis"? If so, then penance assigned in the Sacrament of Confession (and performed) must work "ex opere operato", i.e., without its efficacy relying on the penitent’s subjective disposition. True?
VOLUNTARY ACTS OF SATISFACTION DO WORK EX OPERE OPERANTIS.
HOWEVER, THE PENANCE ASSIGNED IN CONFESSION IS NOT VOLUNTARY. IT IS REQUIRED BY THE SACRAMENT, WHICH WORKS EX OPERE OPERATO. YOU ARE ABSOLVED EX OPERE OPERATO AS LONG AS YOU INTEND, AT THE TIME OF THE SACRAMENT, TO DO THE PENANCE. YOU ARE THEN GRAVELY OBLIGATED TO PERFORM IT, BUT YOU ARE ALREADY ABSOLVED.
3. An Indulgence is an act of the power of jurisdiction of a prelate (Pope, Bishop), not of the power of orders. But since the Church has no jurisdiction over the dead, we cannot be sure that an Indulgence for the dead is efficacious. Is this true?
TRUE, BUT THIS IS STATED A LITTLE STRONGLY. SINCE THE DEPARTED ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE EARTHLY CHURCH, WE CANNOT HAVE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE APPLIED TO THEM IN PARTICULAR CASES, BUT WE MAY HAVE REASONABLE CONFIDENCE THAT GOD HEARS AND RESPONDS AFFIRMATIVELY TO THE EARTHLY CHURCH’S REQUESTS IN THIS REGARD.
So Now We ALL Know!
. . . Or at least all of us who want to know.
Here’s the explanation for why Klingons in the 23rd century were human-appearing, while those before and after are forehead-ridgers.
The episode of Star Trek: Enterprise that establishes the on-screen explanation should have aired in everyone’s town by now, but lest anyone not want to know, I’ll put the spoilers in white-on-white, so you have to select the text (by swiping it or hitting Ctrl-A) to see it.
Here goes:
- In the late 20th century, a group of scientists created a "master race" of genetically altered humans, among them Kahn Noonien Singh. This led to the Eugenics Wars on Earth in the 1990s.
- In the 22nd century, scientific genius Arik Soong (played by Brent Spiner) incubated and birthed a number of embryos from this time. These embryos, because of their augmented DNA, were known as "augments." They had the increased intelligence and aggression of the key players in the Eugenics Wars.
- When Arik Soong unleashed several augments in the 22nd century, the Klingons perceived it as a threat.
- Subseuquently, when several augmented embryos fell into their hands, they exploited their DNA to create Klingon augments to compete with human augments.
- One Klingon augment had a virus that combined with the human augment DNA.
- This virus spread to other Klingons, making them not only have augmented abilities but also to appear more human.
- By the 23rd century (the time of Star Trek: The Original Series), this virus had spread throughout the Klingon race.
- By the 24th century (the time of Star Trek: The Next Generation), this virus had been cured, making Klingons of that era profoundly uncomfortable in discussing why their appearance had temporarily temporarily lurched human-ward a over hundred years before.
So there!
That explains:
- Why the difference existed.
- Why characters in Enterprise’s time had the forehead-ridge appearance.
- Why characters in the TOS period had the human-looking appearance.
- Why characters from the beginning of the movies onward were back to the forehead-ridge appearance.
- Why characters introduced as human-looking in TOS were forehead-ridgers later on.
- Why it seemed to affect the whole race.
- Why Klingons were embarrassed to talk about all this with outsiders, and:
- Why the human-lookers were so . . . human . . . looking.
for this week’s episode, which spells it out in more detail.