Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Superman Returns

By Steven D. Gredanus

Along with Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark, Richard Donner’s iconic 1978 film Superman, with its comic-book tale of mythic good vs. evil and grandly nostalgic fantasy and adventure, helped to define the vibe of post–Easy Rider age Hollywood.

Though disaffected critics dismissed these action-packed films as mere escapist spectacle, they were in fact infused with something more. The Force in Star Wars represented an overt appeal to the idea of religious mystery, of the numinous, of good and evil as more than human categories. Raiders of the Lost Ark explicitly wove Judeo-Christian awe of the sacred and dread of sacrilege into a story in which evil — represented by the 20th century’s most reliable icons of evil, the Nazis — is ultimately defeated not by rugged action hero Indiana Jones, but by no less than the God of the Hebrews himself.

The whole thing is here: http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/supermanreturns.html.

MB: Greydanus is on target.  I wouldn't give the film an A- as he does; B+, at the most.  There are too many salutes to the first two flicks, too young a Lois Lane and even too young a Superman for my money. And some other problems I won't bore people with here.

Even so, there's a lot of interesting stuff in this film. Read Greydanus for the scoop. I'll underscore only one point in his superb review: the fact that we have the beginnings here of a Superman who inspires deep self-sacrifice in others. The problem with Superman in the first two flicks is that he is largely a Savior from the outside, even though we are led by his Kryptonian father to expect otherwise.  Superman saves us from external threats.  What mankind needs is a Savior who can transform us from the inside--save us from ourselves, make us into little Supermen.  And that requires a Savior who is one of us--as Superman isn't--and yet who isn't one of us, who can work in our souls.  It demands one who can truly suffer for us and enable us to transform the meaning of our own suffering.  Superman Returns doesn't quite get there, but it's headed in the right direction. 

Head of the Congregation for Divine Worship: Post-conciliar reform not always true to Vatican II

From The Tablet (hat tip: Amy Welborn), more news hinting at further changes on the liturgical front:

The newly appointed Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship said this week that some liturgical reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council have not been true to the council's decrees. Archbishop Albert Patabendige Don accused a human-centred "spirit of total liberty ... without roots or depth", of too often usurping the divine mystery - which should be at the heart of the liturgy - in the post-conciliar liturgical reforms.

"The Vatican II decree Sacrosanctum Concilium ... was about making the liturgy the entry point to the faith, and liturgical changes were expected to emerge organically, by taking account of tradition, and not precipitately," said Archbishop Patabendige Don. But there had been drifts away from this spirit. "The direction of liturgical prayer in the post-conciliar reform has not always reflected the texts of Vatican II, and in this sense, we can speak of a necessary correction, of a reform of the reform. We must regain the liturgy in the spirit of the Council," he added.

Today, the problems concerning the liturgy turned upon language (vernacular or Latin), and the position of the priest, (facing the congregation or God), said the Archbishop in an interview with La Croix, a French Catholic daily newspaper, on 25 June. "Nowhere, in the conciliar decree, is it laid down that the priest must henceforth face the congregation, nor that the use of Latin is forbidden. If the use of modern languages is accepted, notably for the Liturgy of the Word, the decree clearly specifies that the use of Latin will be maintained in the Latin rite. On these subjects, we await the Pope's instructions," he added.

Some related IgnatiusInsight.com articles:

• Music and Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer | Excerpt from The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Foreword to U.M. Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• How Should We Worship? | Preface to The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid, O.S.B. | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Walking To Heaven Backward | Interview with Father Jonathan Robinson of the Oratory
• Rite and Liturgy | Denis Crouan, STD
• The Liturgy Lived: The Divinization of Man | Jean Corbon, O.P.
• The Mass of Vatican II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
• Liturgy, Catechesis, and Conversion | Barbara Morgan

Pope Pius XI archives to be opened

From the Associated Press:

The Vatican said Friday it will release from its secret archives years of files on Pope Pius XI, whose pontificate spanned most of the period between the world wars.

The files cover the period from Feb. 6, 1922, to Feb. 10, 1939. Researchers will be allowed to access the files beginning Sept. 18.

In 2003, the Vatican began making available to scholars millions of Vatican documents from the years leading up to World War II, making them available ahead of schedule at the request of Pope John Paul II.

For years, the Vatican has struggled to defend Pius' successor — the wartime Pope Pius XII — against claims he did not do enough to save Jews from the Holocaust.

That last sentence captures well the general attitude of the MSM when it comes to Pope Pius XII: The Vatican struggles to disprove that the war-time pontiff didn't do enough to save Jews. And who judges what "enough" is? Well, those who accuse Pius XII of not doing enough. How convenient! Anyhow, I'm fairly certain that what will happen is the contents of the archives will provide further evidence that both Pius XI and the future Pius XII were strongly opposed to Hitler and did much to fight for the rights and lives of Jews -- as some Jewish authors have shown at length and in depth. And I'm equally certain that any such findings will be largely ignored or relegated to page Z65 of most newspapers. And so the "struggle" continues.

Creation, Salvation, and the Mass | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

Creation, Salvation, and the Mass | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | June 30, 2006

I.

The Holy Father, in his brief homily on the Feast of Corpus Christi before the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome, remarked that the Eucharist has "cosmic implications," by which he meant that the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ portended the "divinization of the whole cosmos" (L'Osservatore Romano, June 21, 2006). This is a remarkable statement. What could he possibly mean by it?

Can the world be "divinized" and, at the same time, still be a world, so evidently full of fallen men, of evil and disorder? God remains God, not the world. We cannot forget Chesterton's remark, however, that the fact of sin, something obvious among us, does not argue to the view that revelation was not necessary, but to the conclusion that it was necessary, that was its point. We are not capable of redeeming ourselves. The context of revelation, as it has been handed down to us, concerns both "the purification of reason," as the Pope called it, and the restoration of the human race to the original intention of God in creation, that is, to associate other free beings with His own inner life, His Trinitarian life. How so?

Continue reading...

Is destroying embryos equivalent to abortion according to canon law?

From Dr. Ed Peters and the "In The Light of Law" blog:

Alfonso Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, the outspoken president of the Pontifical Council on the Family, has asserted that "destroying human embryos is equivalent to abortion"; therefore, he says, those directly involved in such deeds are liable to the canonical penalty established for abortion, namely, excommunication (1983 CIC 1398). That the cardinal stands on solid biological and moral grounds in equating deliberate embryo destruction with procured abortion is beyond serious question. What I want to ask is whether he stands on solid canonical grounds as well.

Click here for the answer.

Superman and the God-man

I have little or no interest in "Superman Returns", but have been mildly curious about the "Superman as Christ-figure" talk that has popped up here and there. Thankfully, the always readable and thoughtful Thomas Hibbs, who moonlights as Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Culture at Baylor University, has seen and reviewed the movie for NRO. Overall, he doesn't find the movie to be very super, or even manly:

The most impressive feature of the film is its symbolic development of Superman as sacrificial hero, but the film reaches for this motif too often. Superman seems dead and then comes back to life, how many times?  Once, twice, or thrice?  Moreover, it is not clear what exactly we are to make of his relationship with Lois and her son, whom the final frames indicate is Superman's child.  Part of the problem with Lois is that her personality is grating, even whiny.  That may well be nothing new. Margot Kidder, after all, will never compete for most alluring Hollywood actress, but she did have spunk and some wit.  Beyond that, the Lois in this film is an ethically challenged character, at least in the arena of truthfulness.  The man she currently lives with believes the boy is his son; to him, Lois has never even admitted her love for Superman, although he has strong suspicions.  And just how are we to understand the offspring-producing love affair between Superman and Lois?  And how would that affect the Christ imagery of the film?  (Where’s Dan Brown when you need him?)

The question here is not about orthodoxy.  Superman is a Christ figure — a common-enough type in our virtue-starved culture — not “The Christ.” But even the imagery of the Christ figure requires a certain degree of dramatic and ethical consistency.  It’s not clear by the end of the film whether Superman is really a self-sacrificing hero or a chump for a woman who is best suited to a marriage with a conventional, upwardly mobile male.  One might argue that that question had already been raised in the 1978 film, but that doesn’t help clarify anything here. And the accentuation of the divinity of Superman only serves to exacerbate the problem.

There you go. Now I can move on to more important and life-changing matters, such as the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie, "Dead Man's Chest".

Music and Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Music and Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger | Excerpts from The Spirit of the Liturgy
      
The following excerpts are from The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, former prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and now Pope Benedict XVI.              
    
Music and the Bible

The importance of music in biblical religion is shown very simply by the fact that the verb "to sing" (with related words such as "song", and so forth) is one of the most commonly used words in the Bible. It occurs 309 times in the Old Testament and thirty-six in the New. When man comes into contact with God, mere speech is not enough. Areas of his existence are awakened that spontaneously turn into song. Indeed, man's own being is insufficient for what he has to express, and so he invites the whole of creation to become a song with him: "Awake, my soul! Awake, O harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn! I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations. For your steadfast love is great to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds" (Ps 57:8f.). We find the first mention of singing in the Bible after the crossing of the Red Sea. Israel has now been definitively delivered from slavery. In a desperate situation, it has had an overwhelming experience of God's saving power. Just as Moses as a baby was taken from the Nile and only then really received the gift of life, so Israel now feels as if it has been, so to speak, taken out of the water: it is free, newly endowed with the gift of itself from God's own hands. In the biblical account, the people's reaction to the foundational event of salvation is described in this sentence: "[T]hey believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses" (Ex 14:31). But then follows a second reaction, which soars up from the first with elemental force: "Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the Lord" (15:1). Year by year, at the Easter Vigil, Christians join in the singing of this song. They sing it in a new way as their song, because they know that they have been "taken out of the water" by God's power, set free by God for authentic life. (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp 136-7)

Continue reading...

Pope says pop out of tune at Mass

"Pope Benedict wants only 'authentic' sacred music in church services, which includes traditional choirs and Gregorian chant but not guitars or folk/popular-style choruses," reports Australia's The Age.

"Speaking after a concert in his honour in the Sistine Chapel at the weekend, the Pope said sacred music must take into account the tradition of the church, especially 'sacred polyphony'."

The whole article is here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pope-says-pop-out-of-tune-at-mass/2006/06/27/1151174202006.html.

The Holy Father's comments, in Italian, are here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060624_fondazione-bartolucci_it.html.

Zenit's report is here: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=91605.

Sandro Magister's analysis/interpretation is here: http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=67801&eng=y.

Here's The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/27/wpope27.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/27/ixnews.html.

(All the usual disclaimers about the near infallibility of the media to get the details wrong apply.)

(Yes, I know this is a bit of old news for some of you, but I've only just be able to get around to posting it.  Besides, your commenting on it is almost as important as my posting it.)

Parental notification in California, Oregon

Another attempt to pass a parental notification initiative in California is underway. The Mercury News reports:

The abortion initiative will be familiar to many voters. Last November, they rejected a nearly identical proposal 53 percent to 47 percent. But backers say the makeup of voters in that election was skewed toward opponents of the initiative and believe they'll have better success this time.

People overwhelmingly believe that ``parents should at least know before a young girl gets a surgical procedure, including an abortion,'' said Albin Rhomberg, a representative for the initiative, which has been named the Parents Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative.

Opponents argue, apparently with a straight face, that letting parents know that their 15-year old daughter wants to have an abortion can be "traumatic" (unlike an abortion, which is a minor surgical procedure):

Women’s health advocates argue that requiring parental permission for underage girls adds extra trauma to those in abusive or incestuous relationships, and favors young women with the education and resources to go through the process. Obtaining a waiver from a judge is a difficult process for a young woman to undertake, and the result can be contingent on the personal beliefs of the judge issuing the waiver.

If you think it's hard for a teenager to get a waiver, try getting one from the womb.

The Catholic Sentinel reports that a petition to get a similar measure on the November ballot in Oregon is underway:

Organizers of a drive to require parental notification before abortions on minors are putting out an 11th-hour call to qualify their proposal for the November ballot.

The Committee to Protect Our Teen Daughters is asking churches, expected to be the major source of petitions, to turn in sheets by June 20. By July 7, the campaign must give 76,000 valid signatures to the Secretary of State.

Opponents of the measure, having no faith in the citizens of Oregon, did the usual: "Earlier this year, abortion rights activists appealed the language of the initiative, delaying the start of signature gathering."

For more information, visit www.ProtectOurTeenDaughters.com.

8 Keys to Reading Joseph Ratzinger's Work

Courtesy of ZENIT and Archbishop Bruno Forte of Chieti-Vasto, a member of the International Theological Commission.

New Author Page: Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.

Stop making excuses!

Young Nathanael Blake, a senior at Oregon State University, challenges pro-abortion hypocrisy and asks:

What then, is the motivation for hypocrisy of such enormity? What could induce the abandonment of all ideals of compassion, justice and sympathy for the downtrodden, and opposition to the exploitation of the weak and helpless by the powerful?

Vernacular and sacred language

Michael P. Foley, professor of patristics at Baylor University, makes a good (and, I think, rarely stated) point in a piece in the OpinionJournal about the new English translation of the Latin Order of the Mass:

The current controversy is also interesting because it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding over the nature of liturgical language. The Rev. Lawrence J. Madden, director of the Georgetown Center for Liturgy, dislikes the new and more accurate translation because "It isn't the English we speak. It's becoming more sacred English, rather than vernacular English."

Yet that is precisely the point. When Vatican II permitted translations of the Mass in 1963, it spoke of translating into the "mother tongue," not into everyday speech. Contrary to widespread belief, there has never been a tradition of the vernacular in Christian liturgy, if by "vernacular" you mean the language we speak on the street. Many of the earliest Masses were offered in a language the congregation could understand, but not in the language that could be heard in the marketplace. Before a native language was used in divine worship, it was first "sacralized"--its syntax and diction were gingerly modified, archaisms were deliberately re-introduced and even new rhythmic meters and cadences were invented. All of this was done in order to produce a distinctive mode of communication, one that was separate from garden-variety vernacular speech and capable of relaying the unique mysteries of the Gospel.

Thus, if English is to convey sacred mysteries, there should be a "sacred English." The very word we use for everyday speech, "profane," comes from pro-fano, "outside the temple." If Catholics wish to make the world Christ's temple, as Pope Benedict recently put it, they must first be careful not to make Christ's temple the world.

Brilliance alert: Christianity, not TDVC, the real problem

A letter to the editor of the Hi-Desert Star argues implicitly that history, logic, and fact should never get in the way of an opinion:

In reference to Mr. Kennedy's Letter “Evil is behind ‘Da Vinci Code',” I think we should look at some historic facts before we decide where the evil really exists.

We are fortunate to live in a country where we are free to write a book or make a movie that is critical of religion without being burned at the stake. Many people in the world don't -- that's because they are living in theocratic Islamic states. Christianity itself is not more benign than Islam however, it just doesn't have the political power that Islam does in the countries where it is prevalent.

Yes, thank goodness this country was formed by a bunch of openminded atheists and freedom-loving agnostics! And speaking of such, how about the wonderful and grand Soviet experiment? I guess that it proved once and for all how wonderful life is when the political system is free of religion.

During the Middle Ages the Catholic Church tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of people over minor doctrinal differences. I have no doubt that they would kill over the Da Vinci code today if they had the power to do so.

Get that? Christians are murderers who are simply waiting for the right moment to kill those they don't agree with. As for the horrible Middle Ages and the Inquisition (which is likely the implicit reference), how about letting the BBC and A&E clear up the mythology of "hundreds of thousands" people murdered by the Church?

It is ironic, and tragic, that religious views are considered so sacred that they can't be criticized. History shows us that they are most worthy of criticism.

I must conclude, then, that the author of this letter is saying TDVC is a serious and thoughtful criticism of Catholicism? That's strange, because I keep hearing that "it's just a novel". Well, since Christians cannot be trusted (they are murderers waiting to emerge, after all), how about examining some criticisms of TDVC voiced by an atheist?

Ignatius Press classic: Heart of the Redeemer by Timothy T. O'Donnell, STD

Heart of the Redeemer by Timothy T. O'Donnell, S.T.D.

Destined to become the classic behind the contemporary revival of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Heart of the Redeemer examines the doctrinal roots of the devotion to the Sacred Heart in Scripture and in the Apostolic and Patristic ages; charts its growth and development through the Middle Ages; explains the enormous contribution of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque; and unfolds the teachings of the Papal Magisterium on the Sacred Heart, including Vatican II and John Paul II. The book also includes photographs illustrating the development of the devotion.

Devotion to the Sacred Heart is intimately linked to our response in love to the Eucharistic Christ. It lies at the core of Catholic spiritual life and is the key to effective renewal of individuals, the Church and the world. For those who haven't yet lived this devotion--or who want to understand and live it more fully--they will discover its richness and beauty in Heart of the Redeemer.

Years of careful research have produced a one volume synthesis of how the devotion to the Heart of Jesus has developed over the centuries. The result is a moving overview of how the love for Jesus Christ has grown in the hearts of the faithful from Calvary to the present day.

"Heart of the Redeemer is a comprehensive and profound study not only of the origins and theology of devotion to the Sacred Heart, but of its contemporary importance as well. For all the good that it will do to foster a love for Christ, which is personal and social, I warmly welcome Heart of the Redeemer, recommending it to clergy and laity alike." -- John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York

"Heart of the Redeemer is an indispensable source book on the history of the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I say `indispensable' because it is the only book of its kind. It is not too much to call it a treasury of Catholic wisdom on the Sacred Heart." -- Fr. John Hardon, S.J., Author, The Catholic Catechism

Timothy T. O'Donnell received his doctorate at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome. He is Chairman of the Department of Theology at Christendom College.

The Godless priesthood pulls the plug on freedom of speech

Perhaps by now you've heard the story of Brittany McComb, valedictorian of Foothill High School in  Las Vegas. Having jumped through the many hoops of public education and attained a 4.7 GPA (Huh? I thought 4.0 was the highest possible GPA), she prepared a 750-word speech, which included references to God, "the Lord", and "Christ." The Review-Journal reports what happened—or didn't happen—during her address:

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.

School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.

Of course, it wasn't just "school officials" who fretted over every jot and tittle of McComb's offensive and audacious ode to the Creator and Savior, but also a member of the Godless episcopal hierarchy:

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.

"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."

If you still think that public schools are a viable educational destination for children, those words should give you pause: "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech." In other words, McComb should have known that her speech should have simply mouthed the empty and meaningless platitudes she had been taught in the classroom, no doubt replete with references to "tolerance" and "diversity" and "openmindededness" and the necessity of being "inclusive." As Ben Shiparo, an orthodox Jew and a fine young writer not too much older than McComb, points out in a TownHall.com column such crude tactics have no basis in the Constitution, regardless of what any high priest of the Church of ACLU says:

The Constitution provides no right to be free from public expression of religion. The relevant portion of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The basic idea is this: There should be no national religion, because establishment of a national religion would necessitate shutting down other religions. The idea that the First Amendment bans all public reference to God or Jesus is absurd. As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist famously wrote in his Wallace v. Jaffree dissent (1985), "It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion."

There is no right to be free from public expression of religion, but there is a Constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion. Brittany McComb was chosen to speak not because she was religious, but because she had a 4.7 grade point average -- and it is none of the school district's business whether she chooses to invoke God, Jesus or Zeus (though history indicates that the ACLU would fight for her right to invoke Zeus).

As Ann Coulter states in Godless: The Church of Liberalism, "Public school teachers are the new priesthood while traditional religion is ridiculed and maligned." (Her chapter on public education is one of the best in the book.) Not inclined to listen to Coulter? How about John Gatto, who taught in the New York City public school system for thirty years, was NYC Teacher of the Year in 1989, 1990, and 1991, and was NY State Teacher of the Year in 1990 and 1991? Frustrated and tired of dealing with the system, he quit and began exposing the truth about public education in books such as Dumbing Us Down, A Different Kind of Teacher, and The Underground History of American Education. In his essay, "Nine Assumptions of  Schooling", Gatto outlines the core assumptions behind public education that ultimately lead to the repression and censorship of religion, free speech, and real thinking:

1. Social cohesion is not  possible through other means than government schooling; school is  the main defense against social chaos.
2. Children cannot learn to  tolerate each other unless first socialized by government agents.
3. The only safe mentors of  children are certified experts with government-approved  conditioning; children must be protected from the uncertified,  including parents.
4. Compelling children to  violate family, cultural and religious norms does not interfere  with the development of their intellects or  characters.
5. In order to dilute parental  influence, children must be disabused of the notion that mother  and father are sovereign in morality or intelligence.
6. Families should be  encouraged to expend concern on the general education of everyone  but discouraged from being unduly concerned with their own  children's education.
7. The State has predominant  responsibility for training, morals and beliefs. Children who  escape state scrutiny will become immoral.
8. Children from families  with different beliefs, backgrounds and styles must be forced  together even if those beliefs violently contradict one another.  Robert Frost, the poet, was wrong when he maintained that "good  fences make good neighbors."
9. Coercion in the name of  liberty is a valid use of state power.

Many of these assumptions are readily evident in the case of Brittany McComb. The idea that public education and the ACLU are against "proselytizing" is beyond laughable and hypocritical. I attended high school in 1983-87 in a small town in western Montana, a veritable bastion of conservative thinking and traditional living. But our high school's principal, who came from who-knows-where, spent time telling students (usually in "advanced student" groups) how wonderful and necessary was euthanasia and sex education, and how pornography was actually "art" (he tried to pull the latter in my senior English class one day and my English teacher, a well read and thoughtful Lutheran, handed the principal his head). Such actions have nothing to do with "education," and everything to do with indoctrination and, yes, proselytization.

So what does McComb have to say?

McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.

"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions. It's what I believe."

Best wishes to you, Brittany. And congratulations on still being able to think for yourself after four years of high school education—that's no small achievement.

The Atheist and the Code: An Interview with Tim O'Neill | Carl E. Olson

The Atheist and the Code: An Interview with Tim O'Neill | Carl E. Olson | June 22, 2006
      
A few weeks ago, at the end of May, I received a surprising e-mail from an Australian named Tim O'Neill. It stated, in part:

As a medievalist, I have been bemused and frustrated by the way Brown's novel [The Da Vinci Code] has been taken as historical fact since I first had the displeasure of struggling through his turgid prose in late 2004. Since then I have found myself in discussions/debates with Da Vinci fans regarding the many and various historical errors in the novel both online and in 'real life'. In many of those online discussions I have pointed people to online resources on the subject as well as to the small library of books on the novel's claims. I have often recommended your The Da Vinci Hoax and several of the online articles by yourself and Sandra Miesel, particularly "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into The Da Vinci Code".

Inevitably, the response to these recommendations has often been that you and writers like you are simply "dupes of the Vatican" (something Darrell Bock would, no doubt, find highly amusing) and that you are simply defending your faith because you are scared of the 'revelations about history' that the Code supposedly makes. These people usually assume that I am a Christian as well and are often confused when I explain that I'm an atheist.

Frustrated by this, I set out about 18 months ago to produce an online resource which examines the claims made in the DVC from a purely historical, religiously-neutral perspective. This has been partly to counter the idea that only Christians disagree with this novel's silly claims, partly to show that religious critics like yourself make arguments which are soundly based on historical research and partly to provide a resource that non-Christians can regard as 'unbiased'.

O'Neill's site, www.HistoryvsTheDaVinciCode.com, explains that he has had an interest in ancient and medieval history for about thirty years. He was born in New South Wales, Australia, and grew up in the state of Tasmania. He was awarded a B.A. from the University of Tasmania in 1989, writing his dissertation on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. He then pursued a research Master of Arts, with a thesis on John Gower's Confessio Amantis, and was awarded that degree in 1993. He's lived in Sydney, Australia, for the last thirteen years, where he runs an executive recruitment company specializing in the banking and finance sectors.

He writes: "I've maintained my interest in the study of medieval history, medieval literature and ancient history, with a particular interest in the origins of Christianity, the formation of the Bible and the history of the early Church. I am an atheist whose interest in religious history is purely from a historian's perspective."

After exchanging e-mails with O'Neill, I asked him if he would be interested in an interview with IgnatiusInsight.com. He kindly obliged.

Continue reading...

Duel of the Seminarians

Here's a short video bound to foster priestly vocations. It's called "Duel of the Seminarians":

http://web.mac.com/geerlingguy/iWeb/Lightsabers/Duel%20of%20the%20Seminarians.html

Cardinal Bertone Names Vatican Secretary of State

It's official. Pope Benedict XVI has named Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone of Florence to become the Vatican Secretary of State, replacing Cardinal Angelo Sodano.  There's be a great deal of speculation about the matter.

Here is CWN's story on it: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=44894.

Here isCNS's piece: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0603584.htm.

Here is the AP article: http://www.nola.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-18/1150979978138470.xml&storylist=international.

Times Online has this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2238176,00.html.

"Joan Clark Hauk ... will be ordained as a Catholic priest..."

Really? Says who? ABC News, that's who. NewsBusters.org's Tim Graham explains that ABC reporter Dan Harris, in his eagerness to praise Episcopalian Bishop-ette Katherine Jefferts Schori, got sloppy with the facts regarding another "ordination":

Predictably, following what I suggested yesterday, ABC's "World News Tonight" hailed the new female Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA as a "milestone" and a "significant advance for women in religion." To the media elite, it is a political victory for feminism, and the religious angle is barely worth mentioning.

ABC reporter Dan Harris hailed Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori for denting the "stained glass ceiling," but said nothing about her theological beliefs, including her expressing the liberal view on CNN that homosexuality "is not a sin." The battle over gay clergy and "marriage," not female leaders, is the real battle in the Anglican Communion.

Harris just mangled the facts when he turned to claiming "a grandmother in Pennsylvania will be ordained as a Catholic priest...one the Vatican will not condone." So if the Vatican will not recognize the ordination, is it an ordination? In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) excommunicated women claiming to be priests. Let's go secular with this argument. If I decided to buy a microphone and a TV camera, and I put ABC logos on them, am I an ABC reporter? Or does ABC think I don't need to be officially recognized as an ABC reporter before I go around town claiming to be ABC?

Oddly enough, Harris reported the following:

Most evangelical denominations, as well as the Catholic Church, steadfastly refuse to ordain women. Nevertheless, in late july, Joan Clark Hauk, a grandmother from Pennsylvania, will be ordained as a Catholic priest, along with seven other women. It will be the first ceremony of its kind in this country, and one the Vatican does not condone.

Uh, if the Vatican doesn't condone the "ordination," how exactly is it an authentic Catholic ordination? Especially since the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law states: "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination" (CIC, can. 1024; CCC 577)? I know that is a really complex statement, but still...