Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Pope Benedict XVI performs miracle

He renders Dick Vitale speechless.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. I'm not a Vitale fan (I prefer less emotive, more analytical sports commentators), but I'm not a hater, either (folks tend to have strong positions on Vitale's brand of hyper-active basketball analysis). Actually, the story and photos are endearing:

“The Pope asked me if I wanted him to pray for something,” Vitale said. “I asked him if he would pray for my family and for peace in the world and he said that he would. He gave me and my wife Lorraine a pair of rosary beads. I didn’t know up until the moment I met him that it was going to happen.

“We went to his summer castle and were among about 1,000 people in the courtyard. I had a letter from Bishop Dewane (Venice Diocese) requesting a meeting. He told me to take it to the Vatican, and I did and then the meeting was arranged. I was shocked. I never thought the meeting would happen.”

Read the entire story.

The Spirituality of Me, Myself, and I!

Last Saturday, the local newspaper had an op-ed piece in the "Religion" section titled, "Power of human spirit available to everyone", written by a student from the  University of Oregon.

The author has apparently plumbed the depths of reality, scanned the vast expanses of the heavens, chanted in the rain forests, beat drums on the African plains, drank espresso in Berkley, and chased the deepest mysteries of life and existence throughout the cosmos, and has arrived at the following conclusions:

I believe that in our society today, it is difficult to distinguish between religion and spirituality. I see spirituality as in the individual search for completion, and religion as the institution or house of this spirituality.

However, we do not need a religion to be spiritual to become complete, to find one’s spirit. We do not need a god, nor do we need a prophet, nor a scroll of stories teaching ethics and moral lessons, but simply the faith that our spirit is within us as is the confidence that you can uncover it. ...

Self-­discovery simply means experimenting with your passions, following your heart and doing what you love. The more you listen to your self, the happier you become and the more your spirit begins to stir. The day will come when you finally liberate your spirit; you feel blissful, limitless and alive, but most importantly, you feel unstoppable. And not simply on a spiritual level but, as the Buddhist monks have demonstrated, you are unstoppable on a physical level as well.

Live your life well, and you will live your life longer. Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and go after it.

This is your world, and in your hands you have the power to control how it will end.

The logic here is so stunning, the philosophical erudition so profound, and the writing so transcendent, I readily confess my inability to respond in the same caliber or on the same level.

And so I am calling upon comedian Brian Regan to offer this response, which I think says it all, says it quickly, and says it well:

"Catholic From the Outset"

"Catholic From the Outset" | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Ignatius Insight | July 5, 2011

"For us Christians, the world is the fruit of an act of love by God who has made all things and in which he rejoices because it is 'good'; it is 'very good,' as the creation narrative tells us" (Genesis 1:1-21). — Pope Benedict XVI, Pentecost Sunday 2011 (L'Osservatore Romano, English, June 15, 2011).

"The Church was catholic from the outset; her universality is not the result of a successive inclusion of various communities." — Benedict XVI, Pentecost Sunday 2011.

I.

Before inventing the vapid "Fourteenth or Fifteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time" business, the Church used to identify those days as "The Fifth Sunday after Pentecost," "the Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost", and so forth. The liturgical season and its teaching were kept in mind. Symbolically and actually, the time after Pentecost is the time of the Holy Spirit, the time between the sending of the Apostles into the world and the Second Coming. What is going on is the essential purpose of Christ's being sent into the world: the salvation of sinners and the proper worship of God as that was established by the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ.

The major event in world history has taken place, namely, the Incarnation of the Son of God. It is a divine event that is at the same time historical. It really happened. What follows the time of Christ's actual life on earth is the time during which the nations and individuals within them make up their minds about reality, about whether they will accept or reject the offer of salvation that was made present in the world with Christ's Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection.

Ultimately, this decision is what the time after Pentecost is about.

As usual, Benedict XVI has given us an insightful reflection on the meaning of Pentecost and the nature of our time in this world. In recalling the period from Holy Week to Pentecost, Benedict says that "the Church has thus re-lived what happened at her origins, when the Apostles gathered in the upper room of Jerusalem, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles."

Read the entire essay on Ignatius Insight...

Brilliant Jew-bashing, Christian-lashing Comment of the Day!

This was just left on my post, "One bad of a hell argument":

Old Testament written by illiterate Cowherds of Middle East which does not suit European way of life. Hence Roman Emperor Constantino & his associates created New Testament, also copying some Eastern Religion. If educated present generation follow this thrash is ignorance at helm.

At least he capitalized "Cowherds." It's good to see that sort of respect in the com box. Cowherds do get treated so poorly these days. After all, shouldn't people who are "illiterate" and still manage to write the entire Old Testament get some sort of credit?

And you thought Christians were poster children for "blind faith"?

This revealing glimpse into the mind of secularists brought to you by The New York Times, reporting about Jill Abramson, the new editor of The New York Times, who ardently proclaims the gospel of, well, The New York Times:

Ms. Abramson, 57, said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like “ascending to Valhalla.”

“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,” she said. “If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”

It's no shock to hear that secularism finds substitutes for religion; that, in fact, is a big part of the story of the past century. But I, for one, am somewhat surprised that a disciple of secularism admits to believing in absolute truth. And, yes, I am aware that Abramson is using a figure of speak and employing some hyperbole in expressing her enthusiasm for her new position as Pope—er, editor of the Grey Lady. Still, it is revealing, even if not surprising...

St. Joan of Arc's Five Great Deeds...

... as described by Mark Twain:

Yes, Orleans was in a delirium of felicity. She invited the King, and made sumptuous preparations to receive him, but—he didn't come. He was simply a serf at that time, and La Tremouille was his master. Master and serf were visiting together at the master's castle of Sully-sur-Loire.

At Beaugency Joan had engaged to bring about a reconciliation between the Constable Richemont and the King. She took Richemont to Sully-sur-Loire and made her promise good.

The great deeds of Joan of Arc are five:

1. The Raising of the Siege.

2. The Victory of Patay.

3. The Reconciliation at Sully-sur-Loire.

4. The Coronation of the King.

5. The Bloodless March.

We shall come to the Bloodless March presently (and the Coronation). It was the victorious long march which Joan made through the enemy's country from Gien to Rheims, and thence to the gates of Paris, capturing every English town and fortress that barred the road, from the beginning of the journey to the end of it; and this by the mere force of her name, and without shedding a drop of blood—perhaps the most extraordinary campaign in this regard in history—this is the most glorious of her military exploits.

The Reconciliation was one of Joan's most important achievements. No one else could have accomplished it; and, in fact, no one else of high consequence had any disposition to try. In brains, in scientific warfare, and in statesmanship the Constable Richemont was the ablest man in France. His loyalty was sincere; his probity was above suspicion—(and it made him sufficiently conspicuous in that trivial and conscienceless Court).

In restoring Richemont to France, Joan made thoroughly secure the successful completion of the great work which she had begun. She had never seen Richemont until he came to her with his little army. Was it not wonderful that at a glance she should know him for the one man who could finish and perfect her work and establish it in perpetuity? How was it that that child was able to do this? It was because she had the "seeing eye," as one of our knights had once said. Yes, she had that great gift—almost the highest and rarest that has been granted to man. Nothing of an extraordinary sort was still to be done, yet the remaining work could not safely be left to the King's idiots; for it would require wise statesmanship and long and patient though desultory hammering of the enemy. Now and then, for a quarter of a century yet, there would be a little fighting to do, and a handy man could carry that on with small disturbance to the rest of the country; and little by little, and with progressive certainty, the English would disappear from France.

And that happened. Under the influence of Richemont the King became at a later time a man—a man, a king, a brave and capable and determined soldier. Within six years after Patay he was leading storming parties himself; fighting in fortress ditches up to his waist in water, and climbing scaling-ladders under a furious fire with a pluck that would have satisfied even Joan of Arc. In time he and Richemont cleared away all the English; even from regions where the people had been under their mastership for three hundred years. In such regions wise and careful work was necessary, for the English rule had been fair and kindly; and men who have been ruled in that way are not always anxious for a change.

Which of Joan's five chief deeds shall we call the chiefest? It is my thought that each in its turn was that. This is saying that, taken as a whole, they equalized each other, and neither was then greater than its mate.

Do you perceive? Each was a stage in an ascent. To leave out one of them would defeat the journey; to achieve one of them at the wrong time and in the wrong place would have the same effect.

Consider the Coronation. As a masterpiece of diplomacy, where can you find its superior in our history? Did the King suspect its vast importance? No. Did his ministers? No. Did the astute Bedford, representative of the English crown? No. An advantage of incalculable importance was here under the eyes of the King and of Bedford; the King could get it by a bold stroke, Bedford could get it without an effort; but, being ignorant of its value, neither of them put forth his hand. Of all the wise people in high office in France, only one knew the priceless worth of this neglected prize—the untaught child of seventeen, Joan of Arc—and she had known it from the beginning as an essential detail of her mission.

How did she know it? It was simple: she was a peasant. That tells the whole story. She was of the people and knew the people; those others moved in a loftier sphere and knew nothing much about them. We make little account of that vague, formless, inert mass, that mighty underlying force which we call "the people"—an epithet which carries contempt with it. It is a strange attitude; for at bottom we know that the throne which the people support stands, and that when that support is removed nothing in this world can save it.

Now, then, consider this fact, and observe its importance. Whatever the parish priest believes his flock believes; they love him, they revere him; he is their unfailing friend, their dauntless protector, their comforter in sorrow, their helper in their day of need; he has their whole confidence; what he tells them to do, that they will do, with a blind and affectionate obedience, let it cost what it may. Add these facts thoughtfully together, and what is the sum? This: The parish priest governs the nation. What is the King, then, if the parish priest withdraws his support and deny his authority? Merely a shadow and no King; let him resign.

Do you get that idea? Then let us proceed. A priest is consecrated to his office by the awful hand of God, laid upon him by his appointed representative on earth. That consecration is final; nothing can undo it, nothing can remove it. Neither the Pope nor any other power can strip the priest of his office; God gave it, and it is forever sacred and secure. The dull parish knows all this. To priest and parish, whatsoever is anointed of God bears an office whose authority can no longer be disputed or assailed. To the parish priest, and to his subjects the nation, an uncrowned king is a similitude of a person who has been named for holy orders but has not been consecrated; he has no office, he has not been ordained, another may be appointed to his place. In a word, an uncrowned king is a doubtful king; but if God appoint him and His servant the Bishop anoint him, the doubt is annihilated; the priest and the parish are his loyal subjects straightway, and while he lives they will recognize no king but him.

To Joan of Arc, the peasant-girl, Charles VII. was no King until he was crowned; to her he was only the Dauphin; that is to say, the heir. If I have ever made her call him King, it was a mistake; she called him the Dauphin, and nothing else until after the Coronation. It shows you as in a mirror—for Joan was a mirror in which the lowly hosts of France were clearly reflected—that to all that vast underlying force called "the people," he was no King but only Dauphin before his crowning, and was indisputably and irrevocably King after it.

Now you understand what a colossal move on the political chess-board the Coronation was. Bedford realized this by and by, and tried to patch up his mistake by crowning his King; but what good could that do? None in the world.

Speaking of chess, Joan's great acts may be likened to that game. Each move was made in its proper order, and it as great and effective because it was made in its proper order and not out of it. Each, at the time made, seemed the greatest move; but the final result made them all recognizable as equally essential and equally important. This is the game, as played:

1. Joan moves to Orleans and Patay—check.

2. Then moves the Reconciliation—but does not proclaim check, it being a move for position, and to take effect later.

3. Next she moves the Coronation—check.

4. Next, the Bloodless March—check.

5. Final move (after her death), the reconciled Constable Richemont to the French King's elbow—checkmate.

From Twain's Joan of Arc (hardcover and electronic book format).

Rapture. Rinse. Repeat.

I figured that Harold Camping, the 1994 and 2011 voice of false prophecy (a two-time winner!), would either tweak his calculations ("I missed a leap year in the late third century B.C....") or get all "spiritual" about his failed prediction. He went with the latter, perhaps mindful that another Rapture-date setting engineer, Edgar Whisenant had tried the former approach back in 1988 and became yesterday's news faster than you can calculate the length of a yardstick. From the CNN blog:

Camping had kept a low-profile since Saturday, the day he had forecast for the return of Jesus Christ to Earth. He and his devoted followers have been warning for months that on May 21, a select 2% to 3% of the world's population would be taken to heaven. Those left behind would face months of tribulation before perishing in the Earth's destruction, which Camping said would happen on October 21.

This is the basis for his new prediction, which Camping claims is not new at all. He told listeners on his Family Radio broadcast Monday that God is "loving and merciful," and had decided not to punish the humanity with five months of destruction.
But he maintains that the end of the world is still coming.

"We've always said October 21 was the day," Camping said during his show. "The only thing we didn't understand was the spirituality of May 21. We're seeing this as a spiritual thing happening rather than a physical thing happening. The timing, the structure, the proofs, none of that has changed at all."

Ah yes, the ol' "spiritual", heavenly-not-earthly card. That's original. Well, not really, as this Catholic Answers essay indicates:

The Seventh-Day Adventist church traces its roots to American preacher William Miller (1782–1849), a Baptist who predicted the Second Coming would occur between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. Because he and his followers proclaimed Christ’s imminent advent, they were known as "Adventists." 

When Christ failed to appear, Miller reluctantly endorsed the position of a group of his followers known as the "seventh-month movement," who claimed Christ would return on October 22, 1844 (in the seventh month of the Jewish calendar). 

When this didn’t happen either, Miller forswore predicting the date of the Second Coming, and his followers broke up into a number of competing factions. Miller would have nothing to do with the new theories his followers produced, including ones which attempted to save part of his 1844 doctrine. He rejected this and other teachings being generated by his former followers, including those of Ellen Gould White. 

Miller had claimed, based on his interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, that Christ would return in 1843–44 to cleanse "the sanctuary" (Dan. 8:11–14, 9:26), which he interpreted as the earth. After the disappointments of 1844, several of his followers proposed an alternative theory. While walking in a cornfield on the morning of October 23, 1844, the day after Christ failed to return, Hiram Edson felt he received a spiritual revelation that indicated that Miller had misidentified the sanctuary. It was not the earth, but the Holy of Holies in God’s heavenly temple. Instead of coming out of the heavenly temple to cleanse the sanctuary of the earth, in 1844 Christ, for the first time, went into the heavenly Holy of Holies to cleanse it instead.

One is reminded of Ambrose Bierce's cynical, but appropriate, definition of "prophecy": n. The art and practice of selling one's credibility for future delivery. No surprise, bad prophets and poor credibility are two peas in the apocalyptic pod.

Call for Captions for a May 22nd, 2011 Billboard

Feel free to leave your suggestion for the "thought' balloon below (nasty, humorless, and tasteless ideas won't be posted). I'll begin:

"I think I got punked by a false prophet..."

Read Chapter One of "The Snakebite Letters", by Peter Kreeft

On Spiritual Warfare | From The Snakebite Letters | Peter Kreeft | Ignatius Insight

Taking his cue from the new literary genre invented by C. S. Lewis in Screwtape Letters, Peter Kreeft has gathered together fifteen spicy letters from Satan's agents below that allow the reader to spy into Hell's inter-office communication. Now that it is becoming more and more obvious that we are at war--not only cultural but spiritual war--it is also more necessary to understand our diabolical enemy and his strategy.

Combining satire, humor and devilish insights, these fifteen letters from Snakebite to his trainee, Braintwister, provide a complete Satanic strategy for corrupting American society, public and private morality, and the Church. Focusing especially on the critical areas of sex, media, liturgy, theology and religious education, these letters reveal the inroads that Screwtape's satanic American counterparts have made into subverting our modern culture. The Koran says: "Before shooting the arrow of truth, dip it in honey." This genre of devilish correspondence allows serious this-worldly social criticism to take the form of witty other-worldly letters.

This excerpt is Chapter One of The Snakebite Letters.

---

My dear nephew Braintwister:

As your great-uncle I was, of course, signally pleased when the Education Directorate asked me to train you as the new case officer for Patient No. 66,589/ADFgm. As a veteran, I do so enjoy working with fresh talent from the academy.

It's an unusual honor to be assigned to a new patient in the middle of his life. So perhaps you've been "noticed" by the Lower Downs. Doubtless you've also been briefed on the terrain: the regrettable failure of Wormhole, the comrade you're replacing, and the patient's recent conversion to the Enemy's Church. However, as I shall demonstrate below, all is not lost--by any means.

Take a lesson from Wormhole, though. Hell, unlike the Opposition, focuses quite realistically on results. Remember the ruling slogan of your plebe-year philosophy seminar: "Nothing succeeds but success." I also encourage you to review the fine print of your executive-incentive plan.

I'll miss Wormhole, naturally, but his work had been shoddy since the Cure d'Ars fiasco. And it's only fitting that the final act of his long, if undistinguished, career should be to nourish and refresh his fellow officers. I must say it's a gourmet's delight when a former comrade is sauteed to perfection for the rest of us to savor. The quality of human souls is so decidedly bland lately.

Well, to the business at hand: Your patient has become a Catholic. A modest setback. You novices don't realize how even an inconvenience like this can be turned to our advantage. This may shock you, since the Church is our only remaining earthly enemy of any substance, and his conversion to that Church is sincere--for the moment. But you forget that your patient is American; delightfully, typically American.

Continue reading on Ignatius Insight...

You know who are really obsessed with God? Atheists.

My favorite comedian, Jim Gaffigan, has an hilarious bit, "Ribs And Bologna" (on the CD, "King Baby"; you can hear most of it in the preview clip on amazon.com), that goes like this:

I like meat, I do.

But you know who seems to be really obsessed with meat? Vegetarians.

For people who don't like meat, they seem to eat a lot of vegetables that are mashed up and shaped to look like meat. [In his "vegetarian" voice]: "I find meat repulsive. I'll have a veggie burger with fake bacon, and can you serve it to me dressed like a cow? I don't like meat; I just like to call meat late at night and hang up. Let's drive by meat's house. Does meat ever ask about me? [singing] I don't care! I ain't missin' you at all...missin' youuuuuu...."

You never see that the other way: [meat eater's voice]: "I will have the steak and can you make it taste like tofu?"

It occurred to me, in reading some recent news pieces about atheism—especially one atheist in particular (much more about him in a moment)—that Gaffigan's clever observation could be reworked as follows:

I like God, I do. But you know who seems to be really obsessed with God? Atheists. For people who don't believe in or like God, they seem to talk and write a lot of about things are related to God or sound a lot like religions, especially Christianity, that believe in God. "I don't believe in God: I just talk about God all of the time. Does God ever ask about me? I don't care!"

As Chesterton said, in a quote I've posted or quoted numerous times: "If there were not God, there would be no atheists". The larger quote is worth reading:

Atheism is the supreme example of a simple faith. ... The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement by which the atheist lives, is an atmosphere of thrilled and shuttering theism, and not of atheism at all; it is an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. Irreverence is a very servile parasite of reverence; and has starved with its starving lord. After this first fuss about the merely aesthetic effect of blasphemy, the whole thing vanishes into its own void. If there were not God, there would be no atheists. ("Where All Roads Lead," Collected Works, vol. 3 [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990] 37-38).

Enter prolific British philosopher, author, and atheist A. C. Grayling, who I had the pleasure of joisting with a bit back a few years ago regarding his public displays of astounding historical illiteracy. His new book is titled, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, which is described as follows:

You cannot make this stuff up...

... and, sadly, you don't have to (via The St. Louis Post-Dispatch):

The Rev. Steve Lawler should have just given up chocolate or television for Lent.

Instead, Lawler, of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Ferguson, decided to adopt the rituals of Islam for 40 days to gain a deeper understanding of the faith.

On Friday, he faced being defrocked if he continued in those endeavors.

"He can't be both a Christian and a Muslim," said Bishop George Wayne Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri. "If he chooses to practice as Muslim, then he would, by default, give up his Christian identity and priesthood in the church."

Lawler, a part-time rector at the church, didn't foresee such problems when he came up with the idea. He merely wanted to learn more about Islam, he said, especially in light of the ongoing congressional hearings on the radicalization of the faith.

Key point in the article: "Speaking to a reporter that afternoon, he had no problem reconciling his Episcopalian views with those of Islam..." 'Nuf said.

And, to top it off:

He also talked about how he was born and raised Roman Catholic but left it during his early 20s because he didn't care for its conservative viewpoints.

"The Episcopal church is a fairly open church," he said. "If I was the pastor at a very conservative church, I could come in one day and have the locks changed (for doing the Islamic rituals)."

Surprisingly, no Muslims have yet expressed their belief that their Islamic views can be reconciled with Episcopalianism, although several Muslims did say they had no idea what Episcopalians believe (okay, I made that up. Or did I?). Finally:

[Lawler] does, however, plan to go ahead with a series of informal public discussions at St. Stephen's that will include a Muslim, an atheist, a spiritual-but-not-religious person and someone who "lives a full, moral life but has no spiritual or religious foundation at all."

The free series begins March 22 and is called "Giving Up Church for Lent."

That seems about right. But how about showing some real conviction by giving up Islam for Lent?

Cracking (up over) the Illogical Goddess Code

The Langley Advance (Langley, B.C.) reports on a how author and business consultant Karen McGregor "had an epiphany that led to a new path in her a life and a new book." Her new tome is titled, The Madonna Code: Mysteries of the Divine Feminine Unveiled:

The book discusses the four hearts of the Madonna: Virgin, Mother, Goddess and Queen. These are four parts of what she calls "the divine feminine."

The Virgin Heart, for example, refers to a state of openness where a person doesn't judge others or make assumptions based on past experiences.

McGregor met James Twyman, author of the Moses Code, two years ago at an event where he was speaking about his book.

They discussed the Da Vinci Code (2003 by Dan Brown) and the God Code (2004 by Gregg Braden), and she decided that the books had a male slant.

"What I found with the divine feminine is that there is no one code. There is no one answer... We expect in our patriarchal society to have one answer."

Let's see if I have this right: McGregor believes that we shouldn't make assumptions based on past experiences, and then she states, "We expect in our patriarchal society to have one answer." Sounds like she's making assumptions based past experiences! But I bet goddesses get special divine feminine exemptions, right?

Speaking of "Code" books, here's a few that need to be written:

• The Oprah Code: Uncovering the Mystery of Fawning Fans and Sacchrine Spirituality
• The Huffington Post Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Empty Rhetoric, Ideological Illogic, and Leftist Sputterings
• The National Catholic Report Code: Tepid Tales of Dissent, Distortion, and Priestette Delusions
• The Rapture Code: The Biblical Code for a Comforting Walk For the Christian in These Final, Last Days!

Oh, wait, the last one is already taken. Should've known!

"Manalive"

Now available from Ignatius Press:

Manalive: A Novel by G.K. Chesterton

Introduction by Dale Ahlquist

Related Products:

Manalive  - Downloadable Audio File

Manalive  - Audio Book on CD

Manalive  - Electronic Book Download

This classic novel by the brilliant G. K. Chesterton tells the rollicking tale of Innocent Smith, a man who may be crazy-or possibly the most sane man of all. Arriving at a dreary London boarding house accompanied by a windstorm, Smith is an exuberant, eccentric and sweet-natured man. Smith has a positive effect on the house-he creates his own court, brings a few couples together, and falls in love with a paid companion next door. All seems to be well with the world.

Then the unexpected happens: Smith shoots at one of the tenants, and two doctors arrive to arrest him, claiming that he's a bigamist, an attempted murderer, and a thief. But cynical writer Moon insists that the case be tried there-and they explore Smith's past history, revealing startling truths about what he does. Is he the wickedest man in Britain, or is he "blameless as a buttercup"?

Beautifully written, mixing the ridiculous with the profound, full of hilarious dialogue and lushly detailed writing, Chesterton's main character Innocent Smith somehow manages to restore joy to all the dull and cynical lives around him. In this delightfully strange mystery, Chesterton demonstrates why life is worth living, and that sometimes we need a little madness just to know we are alive.

"Chesterton's truths play leapfrog with one another, but they always land squarely on their feet. Nowhere is this more apparent than in this hilarious story to which he has given the characteristic title, Manalive." — Catholic World

Comment of the Week: "What baggage?"

A reader, Jeannine, is not impressed by Mary Leighton's opinion piece, "Music of faith can illuminate a way to love", which I took to task earlier today for being heavy on navel-gazing and light on God-gazing:

As a woman, I am tired of hearing other women "of a certain age"--aging sixties and seventies feminists--bellyaching about "off-putting ancient baggage." What baggage? Belief in the dignity of woman and of all human life? The church of St. Agnes, St. Margaret of Scotland, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Elizabeth Seton, and St. Terese of Lisieux doesn't need to pander to feminist silliness! I sing in a choir, too. Gosh, how I wish we could sing MORE Latin and less stuff written in "Catholish"--that wishy-washy, semi-Protestant stuff. So many of the hymns in our choir book contain defective theology, downright painful (for me) to sing. So many ridiculous "voice of God" songs and songs praising us (the congregation) as practically canonized saints! Any song with the word "fam'ly" in it isn't worth singing, but I carry on because I figure I need the penance.

Well said! Keep on keeping the faith and carrying the baggage.

Civility and Scripture (and a note on sarcasm)

Monsignor Charles Pope has written a fine post/essay, "Concerns for Civility: What Do The Scriptures Teach Us?", for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., blog. Here is a short excerpt from the conclusion:

Careful -Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now, and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity. Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility. But clearly, we tend today, to prefer a gentler discourse.

On the other hand we also tend to be a little thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. And the paradoxical result of insisting on greater civility is that we are so easily “outraged” (one of the more overused words in English today). We take offense where none is intended and we easily presume that the very act of disagreeing is somehow arrogant, intentionally hurtful or even hateful. We seem so easily provoked and quick to be offended. All of this escalates anger further and charges of hate and intolerance go back and forth where there is simply sincere disagreement.

Balance - The Scriptures give us two balanced reminders. First  that we should speak the truth in love,  and with compassion and understanding. But it also portrays to us a time when people had thicker skin and were less hyper-sensitive and anxious in the presence of disagreement. We can learn from both biblical traditions. The biblical formula seems to be “clarity” with “charity,” the truth with a balance of toughness and tenderness. Perhaps an old saying comes to mind: Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.

Read the entire post. One of the challenges, of course, is gauging what is actually mean. There is, as Monsignor Pope notes, a certain grey area: "Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear." Over the years, I've found that some folks feel that any sort of strong or critical remark is "mean-spirited" or "harsh" or "nasty", as if rendering judgment on the logic of an idea or the veracity of an argument were was somehow an outright hate crime. Frankly, I don't understand such folks, nor can I quite fathom how they make through life without a sense of humor or real friends.

I've been chided and chastised more than a few times for strong remarks made on this blog. Once in a while, after considering the complaint, I have apologized for what I've said. But I find, more often than not, that the complaint reveals either an inability for a particular reader to cope with a strong but fair criticism, or a failure to actually take seriously the criticism proferred. What is especially interesting (and a bit funny, if frustratingly so), is when someone complains that a post is "mean-spirited" or "nasty" and then goes on for several sentences about what a horrible thinker, person, Catholic, etc., I surely must be. In such a case, it's apparent that unpardonable sin is failure to feel and emote in exactly the same way as the one complaining/lecturing.

Which brings me to this essential point: I try very hard to aim my criticisms—and especially my use of sarcasm—at ideas, beliefs, and utterances, not at persons. I think this is especially important in using the often unstable and unruly tool of sarcasm, which can detonate in one's cyber-face very easily. (There is also the problem of what is meant by "sarcasm", which has a wide range of meaning depending on who one is talking to; perhaps "caustic criticism" or "acerbic criticsm" is a better term.) But I also believe that sarcasm, used rightly, can expose error and wrong-headedness in a helpful and engaging way. However, it really shouldn't be used to demean and attack persons; rather, it should be used to expose and rebut pretense, falsehood, evasion, lies, fabrications, misrepresentations, cognative dissonance, dissent, and general charlatanism.

For example, here is a bit from a post I wrote back in September 2007 titled, "Hans Küng needs to write less and read more" ; the sentences in bold are from a piece by Küng, followed in regular type by my acerbic criticism:

• "The Romans, the Roman bishop, i.e. the pope, have a hard time admitting mistakes. When you have an ideology of infallibility, then infallible mistakes will be made, and those cannot be corrected." Wow. You would think that a guy who wrote an entire book on papal infallibility might actually understand what papal infallibility is. Which means that either he doesn't (embarrassing) or he is being misleading (worse than embarrassing). But, to point out the obvious, the Regensburg Address, while certainly a serious and important pronouncement, was not "infallible," nor did anyone with any commonsense or knowledge of Catholic teaching act as though it was. Well, take heart, Hans Küng: at least your many mistakes aren't infallible. Just embarrassing.

• "Desperate young people resorted to terrorism. Of course we have to judge suicide assassins and assaults. But we have to think about why so many young people became so desperate to make themselves available for such assassinations." Yes, we sure do. And we need to consider strongly the possibility—which does have evidence on its side—that poverty and "desperation" are not the primary motives of Islamic terrorists. But, of course, you are so busy blaming everything on America and George Bush, you haven't time to read about other perspectives on the matter.

• "Religion can co-exist with democracy. The leading architects of Europe, from Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer to Robert Schuman and Alcide De Gasperi, were all pious Christians. The reason why Islam has more problems with democracy than Christianity is that Islam, in contrast to Christianity and Judaism, had no Reformation and Enlightenment, leaving out a few special circles." I take that to mean that if it weren't for Protestantism and secularism, many Catholics would be just as violent and murderous as some radical Islamists are today? Is this guy serious?

My post was certainly caustic, but it was penned in response to some truly ridiculous (even insulting) remarks by Küng aimed at Benedict XVI, and my focus was on skewering Küng's claims and remarks, not on taking personal shots at him. And yet, sure as shootin', someone left this comment: "These comments mirror intolerance and evilness. To sum up: HK, don't write, don't think, obey the Pope." Really? Well, sure, I am intolerant of passively accepting Küng's dubious remarks as true and well-argued in the lights of facts and basic logic. But "evilness"? And so it goes; and as long as there are blogs and a free exchange of ideas, there is going to be those sort of remarks. Oddly enough, they usually come from people who insist they are the most tolerant, openminded, and expansive-souled folks in the cosmos. Such talk is cheap, and false tolerance is easier to steal and abuse than true civility is to learn and use rightly.

Did you know the U.S. military is under the control of the Catholic Church ...

... and run by operatives from the Knights of Malta and Opus Dei?

No? Fortunately for you, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The New Yorker is working hard to expose it all. The Foreign Policy magazine blog reports, "In a speech billed as a discussion of the Bush and Obama eras, New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh delivered a rambling, conspiracy-laden diatribe here Monday expressing his disappointment with President Barack Obama and his dissatisfaction with the direction of U.S. foreign policy":

He also charged that U.S. foreign policy had been hijacked by a cabal of neoconservative "crusaders" in the former vice president's office and now in the special operations community.

"What I'm really talking about is how eight or nine neoconservative, radicals if you will, overthrew the American government. Took it over," he said of his forthcoming book. "It's not only that the neocons took it over but how easily they did it -- how Congress disappeared, how the press became part of it, how the public acquiesced."

Hersh then brought up the widespread looting that took place in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. "In the Cheney shop, the attitude was, ‘What's this? What are they all worried about, the politicians and the press, they're all worried about some looting? ... Don't they get it? We're gonna change mosques into cathedrals. And when we get all the oil, nobody's gonna give a damn.'"

"That's the attitude," he continued. "We're gonna change mosques into cathedrals. That's an attitude that pervades, I'm here to say, a large percentage of the Joint Special Operations Command."

He then alleged that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC before briefly becoming the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and his successor, Vice Adm. William McRaven, as well as many within JSOC, "are all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta."

Hersh may have been referring to the Sovereign Order of Malta, a Roman Catholic organization commited to "defence of the Faith and assistance to the poor and the suffering," according to its website.

"Many of them are members of Opus Dei," Hersh continued. "They do see what they're doing -- and this is not an atypical attitude among some military -- it's a crusade, literally. They seem themselves as the protectors of the Christians. They're protecting them from the Muslims [as in] the 13th century. And this is their function."

"They have little insignias, these coins they pass among each other, which are crusader coins," he continued. "They have insignia that reflect the whole notion that this is a culture war. … Right now, there’s a tremendous, tremendous amount of anti-Muslim feeling in the military community.”"

Read the entire post. Over on the NRO's main blog, "The Corner," Jonah Goldberg remarks: "Dan Brown call your office." Indeed. Perhaps Hersh could ghostwrite Brown's next novel (since Brown is currently busy writing the screen play for his last novel, The Lost Symbol), and it could be titled, The Mighty Knights of Military Malta. Nah...how about The Papist's Crusading Code. Ugh. One more: The Crusader's Coins and the Mystery of the Changing Mosques. Hmmmm. That sounds like an Encyclopedia Brown story. Wow, I guess it really does take talent to write that sort of shlock.

Okay, I give up. But you have to admit that if Hersh is correct, this means that the Vatican is far more devious and savvy than anyone could ever imagine. After all, many journalists have spent the past several years telling us about the ineptitude of the Vatican and the lack of control by the Pope within the Curia, and now we learn the Catholic Church is actually running the entire U.S. military! Impressive.

Wait a second—someone's at my front dooor. Oh, it's an albino monk. He's openin—aaaauuuuuuuuuuggggh!

Want to be a future failure? Try engineering the Rapture!

Perhaps you've heard the news that some folks are setting a date for the Rapture event. Let's take a look at some of their remarks about their prediction:

All events of the end-time must dove-tail together per the Bible to verify each other both logically as well as literally and mathematically per Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation. ...

The Millennial reign can be based on a Jubilee that occurred during the reign of Hezekiah. Is. 36:1 states that  in the 14th year of King Hezekiah's reign, Emperor Sennacherib of Assyria and his army attacked Judah and  captured it. The remainder of chapter 36 and all of Chapter 37 describe Sennacherib asking Hezekiah to  surrender the city of Jerusalem – the only city left under Jewish control. Hezekiah asks the prophet Isaiah to seek  the Lord's help in rescuing them. The Lord said He would save them if Judah would resume observing the  Jubilee years (practice that had been abandoned) as required by Leviticus 25:8-17. Hezekiah agrees, and the  Lord sends an angel to the Assyrian camp that night who kills 185,000 soldiers of the Assyrian army. 

Sennacherib then withdraws his army from Judah and returns to Nineveh.  The 15th Jubilee cycle can be projected to the present time to determine if it coincides with a Sabbatical cycle.  For the Sabbatical year of 1987/1988, the difference between 701/700 B.C. And 1987/1988 is 2688 years. 2688  years divided by 49 years equals 54.6 Jubilee cycle. Accordingly, 1987/1988 cannot be the year of Jesus' Second  Advent (not Rapture). Also since the Antichrist appear seven years before Jesus returns, 1987/1988 cannot be  valid since 1980/1981 has passed, and the Antichrist has not been observed. Sabbatical and Jubilee cycle seems  to play an important and integral part of God's dealing with the people of Israel. Of particular interest is the use  of these cycles in connection with the return of the Messiah such as in Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks. Jesus  Christ, the Messiah, should return at the end of a Sabbatical year following the 70th and final Sabbatical week. ...

We are told in Luke 21:25, “These shall be the signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars...” We are going to have a solar eclipse of the sun this year, and guess which day of all the 365 days to pick from it will happen on? ...

Were you aware that Mars is regarded as the war planet and it has 2 moons, one of which is phobias (fear) and the other demons (devils), and has historically been associated with war as it becomes close to the earth in its orbit. On the Day of Atonement this year, when the Antichrist signs a Peace Pact with Israel, is when the planet Mars will be as close as ever in history to the earth. If you can't read the Bible, then read the sky. ...

I could go on and on, but you may already suspect that the above quotes, in fact, have nothing directly to do with this recent news:

Ah, so now we know why Mona Lisa is smiling

The meaning of life, the mysteries of the universe, and Dan Brown's closely guarded secrets to writing insufferable, laughable, and best-selling "literature" have all been discovered hiding in plain sight:

Dan Brown's bestseller Da Vinci Code may have to be re-written in the light of new revelations from an Italian team of researchers who said they found letters and numbers in the world famous painting.

Head of the team, Silvano Vinceti, said, "To the naked (eye) the symbols are not visible but with a magnifying glass they can clearly be seen."

They found it while studying the painting at Louvre museum in Paris. "We know Da Vinci used symbols so we are confident that they are a message from him," he told Daily Mail.

Because you can rest assured that if there is one thing Leonardo da Vinci wanted, it was to pass on microscropic ciphers to 21st century researchers. Well, duh! Of course he did. (Just like Mary Magdalene wanted to be a goddess married to a simple Jewish teacher of tolerance and group hugs.) And here, for the first time, are images of those life-changing, breath-taking, mind-shredding "symbols":



Yep, even Robert Langdon could figure this one out after a few hours: "Two thumbs up for The Da Vinci Hoax!" Further proof, dare I say, of Leonardo's genius.

• The "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into The Da Vinci Code by Carl E. Olson (March 14, 2005)

Are the chickens finally coming home to roost?

Yes, it surely appears that they are (they weren't always this mellow):

Taken a couple of weeks ago by my wife. Not as dramatic as these amazing photos taken in my home state of Montana, but possessing a certain mellow, bucolic charm of their own...

Fun Read of the Day: Steve Martin lauds T. S. Eliot and claims to love editors

From a Powell's Books interview with comedian, author, and musician Steve Martin:

Jill: What prompted you to start writing fiction in the first place? What do you enjoy about writing fiction that you don't get from writing essays or plays, or even music or movies?

Martin: I really enjoy finding the right word, creating a good, flowing sentence. I enjoy the rhythm of the words. I haven't said this in a long time, but it's so true for me. When I was in college, I really liked poetry. I don't read much anymore. But my favorite early 20th-century poets were Dylan Thomas, T. S. Eliot, and e. e. cummings. Looking back, here's what I think I learned from each of them. From e. e. cummings, I learned about the rhythm of words. From T. S. Eliot, I learned about the intelligence of words. And from Dylan Thomas, I learned about the beauty of words. I try to bring all three of those elements into writing. Then, of course, you have to tell a story at the same time.

So those are my goals in prose. [Laughter] Prose should be, unless you're writing an instruction manual, a kind of poetry.

Jill: I think you've preempted my next question, which was to ask how you think about the way you use language — it's so clean and lovely and almost fine-boned, I think.

Martin: Well, thank you. I do try to pare it down. I'm always trying to pare it down. I take editing seriously. It's a joy to edit. I always hand a manuscript to several editors and can't wait to get back their notes and see what they've said. I don't criticize myself for making blunders here and there, because it's just natural. You write in chunks, and you may not remember that that sentence you wrote yesterday had the same word repeated three times. [Laughter] I do enjoy that. I love the feeling of repairing. Repairing is really nice.

Here is the entire interview. I've never read any of Martin's fiction, but now I'm curious. His comments about editing are quite interesting; it's not often you find authors who insist that they enjoy having their work edited. But I think most good authors will admit how invaluable it is to have a good editor who doesn't flinch from making strong but constructive criticisms.

When I had written about half of my first book, Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?, I had the vague but uneasy sense that I was losing control of the unity of the book; it was going in too many directions. I asked Mark Brumley, who was my editor at the time, what he thought of the manuscript at that point. He asked, "Do you have a copy of Strunk and White?" I said I did. "Read it again," he said, "and then go back to the manuscript." His basic point, in hindsight, was that I simply needed to touch bases with some fundamentals. Over the years, my pastor, Fr. Richard Janowicz (who has a degree in English), has provided some stellar criticism and editing advice; it often comes down to focus, focus, and clarity. Strip away everything unecessary. Have a clear understanding of the line of thought or argument that is the backbone of an essay or article. Construct the essay with a sense of hierarchy, rightly ordering points and ideas in a logical and appealing way.

While Strunk and White has its detractors, I've found it to be quite helpful. Here are a few other books on writing and usage that I've learned much from—even if my writing doesn't always bear it out!

• Mystery and Manners by Flannery O'Connor. A must read, I think, for anyone who wants to write fiction. Or non-fiction, for that matter. Blunt and beautiful, just like O'Connors fiction.

• The Golden Book on Writing by David Lambuth. I had to read it in high school, and I'm thankful for it. A solid guide to solid writing.

• Write Tight by William Brohaugh. I think Patrick Madrid recommended this one to me. The subtitle says it well: "How to keep your prose sharp, focused, and concise." Excellent book.

• Simple & Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers and On Writing, Editing, and Publishing by Jacques Barzun. In addition to being an outstanding historian and scholar, Barzun (who just turned 103 yesterday!) was a literary advisor to Charles Scibner's Sons. Track these two down if at all possible.

• Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss. I was initially suspicious of its success, but this book is delightful and even caustic—and filled with much good advice about writing.

• The Complete Plain Words by Sir Ernest Gowers. A helpful and handy guide to using words correctly and with precision.

• On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King. When Marcus Grodi recommended this to me a few years ago, I suppressed a snort. But I was wrong: this is a good and rather unique book on writing: brash, occasinally crass, and always engaging. (It also happens to be the only Stephen King book I've ever read.)