The Virtual Abbey

Not a lot of people realize it, but within the rank of Cardinals, there are technically three ranks of Cardinals: Cardinal Deacons, Cardinal Priests, and Cardinal Bishops.

You only will typically hear about this during a papal conclave; but lately there has been some movement among the ranks of cardinals due to retirements and promotions.

Father Zuhlsdorf elaborates.

UPDATE: More here.

I'm watching on the History Channel one of those more-or-less silly shows on the fate of the Ark of the Covenant.

Inevitably, it is a British production. These Englishmen speculate "Was it taken by Nebuchadnezzar? Was it taken by the Egyptians? Is it maybe in Ethiopia?"

Thay are all stumped by the Bible's apparent silence on the fate of the ark of the covenant.

Well, maybe if their ancestors hadn't excised seven books from the Old Testament while they were simultaneously burning down monasteries during the Reformation, they might have a clue.

Because in every Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bible in the world is the answer. In 2 Maccabees.

1 You will find in the records, not only that Jeremiah the prophet ordered the deportees to take some of the aforementioned fire with them, 2 but also that the prophet, in giving them the law, admonished them not to forget the commandments of the Lord or be led astray in their thoughts, when seeing the gold and silver idols and their ornaments. 3 With other similar words he urged them not to let the law depart from their hearts. 4 The same document also tells how the prophet, following a divine revelation, ordered that the tent and the ark should accompany him and how he went off to the mountain which Moses climbed to see God's inheritance. 5 When Jeremiah arrived there, he found a room in a cave in which he put the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense; then he blocked up the entrance. 6 Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the path, but they could not find it. 7 When Jeremiah heard of this, he reproved them: "The place is to remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy.

In other words, Jeremiah removed the ark and hid it -- presumably on the mountain where God saw Moses, which is either Mt. Horeb or Mt. Sinai. As he did not choose to reveal the ark during the time of Christ's life, passion, and resurrection, we must assume it will be revealed in time when God sees fit.

Of course, anyone who is familiar with Catholic biblical typology will realize the many parallels between 2 Samuel and The Gospel of Luke, which also points out parallels between Mary and the Ark.

In my opinion, as God transformed the Law, so he transformed the Ark. There is no need to look for a box of acacia wood, covered in gold. The Ark has been replaced.

UPDATE: Actually, Jeremiah may not have ascended Mt. Horeb. I'm probably misreading the passage from 2 Maccabees. The mountain where the ark was hidden is probably Mt. Nebo -- the mountain where God showed Moses the land of the Canannites, the inheritance of Jacob. If you want to look for the Ark, you'd start on Mt. Nebo.

Of course, you'll only find it if God so desires it.

UPDATE 2: Of course, someone has already claimed to have found it there.

UPDATE 3: Pictures of the Franciscan monastery on Mt. Nebo. You know, no one ever thinks the Franciscans are really the guys behind all the conspiracy theories. Maybe it's because they are far smarter than anyone thinks. It's not the Jesuits . . . not the Dominicans . . . not the Templars . . . not Opus Dei . . .no, my friends, the folks really running the world are the Friars Minor . . .

Is my tone angry of late?

Sorry. I'm reading Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars, about the Reformation, and as I turn each page, I'm getting madder, and madder, and madder . . .

I have a theory that when people in the future look upon the downfall of western civilization, they won't look on the twentieth or twenty-first century as being the zenith of the culture. They may, of course, appreciate the technological advantages of our time, but I think they will look at our culture and see a hopelessly degraded thing. They'll mark the highpoint of our culture instead at an age when there was unanimity in the practice of faith.

To me, our culture's highpoint may well have been the thirteenth or fourteenth century. I think, at any rate, it was before the discovery of American and the invention of the printing press.

It's just a theory.

UPDATE: That's not a criticism of America, by the way. I think that the period from 1492-1700 was one of terrible instability in Europe, with nearly endless wars, some of them religious in nature, and the result was chaos. I think America represents Europe's last best effort, and if our culture is reformed, it will come from America, not from Europe. I'm reading Eamon Duffy's account of the Easter traditions of the English churches and how central religious life was in the Middle Ages, and I'm just struck by the terrible loss of it all in the modern world. As the Cathechism points out, of all of man's gifts, it is not reason that is the greatest, but faith. We live in a world in which there is a tyranny of reason. To me, Faith leads to Christmas and Easter celebrations, while Reason leads inexorably to the police state and the death camp. We let Reason off its leash a few centuries back.

I think that whole decision needs to be revisited.

Nor suffering any.

A fascinating article by R.R. Reno at First Things.

Christians should seek to enlist as many as possible in the cause of humanity. It is one of the central principles of Catholic theology that grace perfects rather than destroys nature. Faith fulfills rather than subverts reason. For this reason, the Catholic tradition (like most other Christian traditions) has never formulated sharp antagonisms between Christ and culture, between church and world, between revealed truths and the truths accessible by natural reason, or between men and women of goodwill and believers in Christ. As the Second Vatican Council made clear, we don’t all need to be believers in order to share and support a humane social order.

And yet what is possible in theory often remains painfully remote in life. As Byron recognized, modern humanism can easily become cruelly jealous of the modest claims it stakes upon the noble but fragile human condition. To believe in something more—it can so easily seem a betrayal. And because the reality of faith cannot help but ignite a desire for God in others, it is not hard to see why our present-day crusaders against belief take up their rhetorical bludgeons. They fear the contagion of piety. To defend the finite goods of this world against the perceived assaults of holiness, they turn the earthly city into a fortress and drive out anyone they perceive as disloyal to its this-worldly principles.

As part of one of my theology classes, I am reading the Catechism, and I have been thinking deeply on the connection between faith and reason. The church sees no conflict between the two; but it is clear about one thing: faith is superior to reason.

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error".

The long quote in the middle is from Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis, which I will have to read at some point.

The gist of the Catechism is this -- man can, indeed, reason himself to God, but rather than, at that point, simply worship God, man prefers to convince himself that God either does not exist, or pretends his existence is sufficiently doubtful to justify doing whatever he pleases.

That this is a true statement about the condition of man I have absolutely no doubt.

The illusion that modern man suffers under is that Reason is king. Those that doubt the interior truth of the story of Genesis are, in a terrible irony, the worst sufferers of the condition Genesis describes. We like to stand in judgment of Scripture, but truly, Scripture stands in judgment of us.

This fact can only be understood through faith, and for those who possess faith, it is itself sufficient evidence of God's existence that one need no longer reason to it. Why take the stairs when you can take the elevator, why build a scaffolding around the church steeple when one can walk up the stairs inside it? When we do not subject ourselves to the exterior truth which has been revealed to us, we are nothing but prisoners of our own tautologies and illusions.

This makes, for believers, Christ's identity certain. He is the Truth, breaking in from the outside, to liberate the gift of faith from the prison of man's reason. As St. Michael chains the Devil to prevent him from doing us harm, Christ chains our reason to put it to better use.

We deny him at our peril. The peril is a prison built of our illusions.

I have to admit that I got a laugh when I had to Google this word today.

Not to be insensitive, but yes, the abbreviation above is indeed, an acronym.

I was reading an article and came across this acronym. I was OK on the first half of it, as I recognized it stood for Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transgendered.

But evidently, those terms lack enough specificity. There are, evidently, people for whom GLBT is a hurtful, stereotypical term, lacking in nuance and subtlely to define the wondrousness of their being.

So someone added Q, for Queer.

Now mind you, Queer is a word I remember from my youth as being an unmitigated perjorative. Call someone a queer on my fifth-grade playground, and well, you were spoiling for a fight. And by high school, call someone a queer, particularly a gay person, and you'd get sent to the principal for being insensitive.

But evidently the terms of political correctness are like New England weather -- wait long enough, and the unthinkable terms become not only come 'round again, but now they are acceptable, or even mandated. Queers are people for whom the terms LGBT or GLBT either a) do not apply, or b) are not specifically strident enough, but who are not, apparently, c) straight, either.

OK, so GLBTQ.

But then someone added "I".

Evidently another term of nuance, because I had never heard it. "I" stands for Intersex. Intersex is someone who is not Gay, nor Lesbian, nor Bisexual, nor Transgendered, nor Queer, but somehow different or somewhere in-between. Somewhere lost-in-acronym. Everybody else, in other words, except, of course, the straight. I'm not sure I even want to know what intersex is; I suppose it might pertain to the dinosaurs in the novel Jurassic Park whose added amphibian DNA made them change from male dinosaurs into female.

OK, so GLBTQI.

Then I ran across a story with the "P" added at the end. I admit, I started laughing as I tried to figure out what it stood for. Polyamorous? Pedophilic? Perverts?

P stands for Pansexual -- which is when you are, apparently, not only GLBTQI, but also perhaps, from time to time, straight. You like sex anywhere, anytime, with anything.

Or maybe it involves sex with pans. I don't know. I didn't go any further down that alley.

I guess it is an acronym only an academic could love.

Me, I'm just glad that I have the Catechism, and can rely on the magisterium if confronted with some poor soul who feels compelled to define themselves this way.

Q. Do you know what the Catholic church does when it disagrees with someone?

(Answer below the fold)

The day is coming when I give up computers.

I do not say that lightly. I say it, and people around me think I am joking.

I'm not joking.

I have been dealing, for twenty years or so, with computers. They have become a major part of my work. I would say in the last fifteen years they have been a major part of my life.

But I am sick of them.

You get the reputation of knowing something about computers, and you are inevitably a "resource" for other people. I do not mind helping people, really, but it seems I get stuck with the worst sort of dilemmas. I get asked to fix problems that I really cannot fix, or to intervene in computer situations I have no business intervening in.

They have long since ceased to be a pleasure.

I wish to devote more time to books, to the simple act of reading. I have been reading a lot of theology lately, and it has brought me peace of mind. Not just because of the subject matter, and because of the rediscovery of my faith, which is a wonderment to all, and for some people, something of a horror.

But part of it is the simple tactile pleasure of reading a book. Its demands are simple. It can be taken anywhere. It does not require a power souce, or an internet connection. It does not require rebooting, is not subject to spam, viruses, or worms, and usually people do not ask me to fix them for them.

I have acquired a good number of liturgical books and there is something reassuring about a book that a computer simply does not have. I cannot relate the simple joy of something like the Mundelein Psalter.

One day last year we lost power for a few hours when I was working at home. I actually spent about an hour reading the Gospel of Matthew by candlelight -- an act that could have been done at any point in the last twenty centuries by a human being, but which seemed to me to be utter novelty.

I worry about the problem of "the grid", which, for those of you who are not societal pessimists, is the large scale problem we have if there is an interruption in power supply. So much of society is based on the premise of easy access to electricity, and so much of our lives are chained to the computers that govern commerce, store our data, give us directions, and demand our constant attention, that we have a hard time remembering what life was like before the computer. If the grid or the network collapsed for any appreciable period of time, we'd soon learn that times have changed, indeed.

I'm old enough to remember the time before computers in the home. I'm old enough to remember the time when the only screen in the house was the computer's idiot cousin, the television, and it had only three stations.

I did a lot of reading back then. I also spent a lot of time outdoors.

Honestly, I'm thinking about doing something like growing plants, instead. Something where the story line plays out over days, and not seconds.

I'm also sick of television and radio, too. I'm sick of the constant interruption of the screens and the speakers, the clamor of noise, the ceaseless beckoning of the damned devices for attention.

Part of it is that our culture seems particularly impoverished, of late. So shabby that it can no longer hide its shabbiness. So loud, braying, and moronic that I simply wish to shut it off.

We were not meant to live in service to machines, particularly machines that are so unreliable, and only exist to annoy.

Some day soon, I will walk away from them all.

I will not miss them.

When gut-shot by a deranged albino monk, the best thing you can do -- rather than, say, call 911 -- is to leave elaborate coded messages for strangers and/or an estranged niece using a combination of invisible ink and/or your own blood and/or corpus, about a conspiracy that might get them killed.

It's the best use of your time.

And they really, really appreciate it.

Oddly enough, the guy who seems to know everything about the Grail conspiracy is himself involved in the Grail conspiracy.

Didn't see that coming.

Should goat sacrifice be permitted?

A Fort Worth court will render judgment.

Sacred practices of a minority religion, or just silliness? You decide. I'm with Psalm 50 on this one:

7. "Listen, my people, I will speak; Israel, I will testify against you; God, your God, am I. 8. Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you, nor for your holocausts, set before me daily. 9. I need no bullock from your house, no goats from your fold. 10. For every animal of the forest is mine, beasts by the thousands on my mountains. 11. I know every bird of the heavens; the creatures of the field belong to me. 12. Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for mine is the world and all that fills it. 13. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? 14. Offer praise as your sacrifice to God; fulfill your vows to the Most High.

Actually, I think that on Constitutional grounds, the Santeria folks will likely win on this one. They've won on chickens before.

I, of course, do not support the practice.

I detest clowns.

Apparently, I'm not alone.

The Archdiocese of Boston has moved its Traditional Latin Mass to Mary Immaculate of Lourdes parish in Newton.

It used to be at Holy Trinity, downtown, but Holy Trinity was slated for closing, so now the parish in Newton hosts it. Holy Trinity was a beautiful old church, built by German immigrants, but it looked like it was in need of serious maintenance.

According to the Globe, ithe Mass draws 200+ additional parishioners from throughout the New England, so it has been a shot in the arm for the parish.

It also makes it a little closer to me should I decide to go there for the old mass. I usually go to Holy Name, in Providence, when I do go, but that has been infrequent this year.

Back in the beginning of Lent, I gave up a few things and stated what I was going to try to do. So how has it gone?

I gave up:

1. Alcohol. So far, no problem. I normally drink more than most people (I'll consume perhaps 5 bottles of wine in a week), but I'm also larger than most people. I have had no real issues with giving up wine, and haven't really missed it. The only exception to this has been communion wine, as I have been taking communion in both species for some time. Of course, Sundays are not traditionally part of the Lenten fast, and as Catholic doctrine and St. Thomas Aquinas will point out, communion wine after consecration is not wine at all, but is indeed the blood of Christ, with merely the "accidental" appearance of wine.

2 Red meat. I wanted to give up all meat, including chicken, but relented on this point at my wife's insistence (in case you haven't followed my story, I am not a real monk, so there is no scandal associated with me having a wife). I have observed this well, also, and have not missed it, either. My wife also gave this up, and she is finding it very difficult, as she likes nothing more than a good burger. I enjoy fish -- both cooking it and eating it -- more than my wife, so I've been treating her to snapper, haddock, cod, and so forth. breaded with cornmeal and flour. Next year I will forgo chicken, as well.

3. Tobacco. Was not on my original list, but I did, indeed, give up the pipe (and occasional cigarette) during Lent. I miss it a little.

I tried to accomplish:

4. The Liturgy of the Hours in Latin. This I have greatly struggled in, and for the most part, have not succeeded with. I try to do seven hours in a day, though work does not permit me to keep the hours at their appointed time. I tend to fall behind and play catch up (I will not miss an hour, no matter how far I fall behind), and my rule is that "when behind, do English only." Well, I've been English-only most of Lent. Part of the difficulty in keeping the hours has been that I have begun my studies for a master's in Theology, and I have had a tremendous amount of theological reading to do as well. That being said, I am hoping to catch up and at least do Holy Week in Latin (at a minimum, the Triduum).

But excuses aside, I do occasionally suffer from being "blocked" in prayer, and experiencing a terrible spiritual torpor where to even open the book seems an unthinkable burden. At times, I feel like something is keeping me from the Hours; so occasionally, I just pray the Rosary.

These periods of blockage are usually relieved by a recommitment to humility. Pride is a terrible, terrible, fault of mine, and occasionally, I feel that I am being brought low and humbled in order to learn a lesson which, while I understand it philosophically, is not a lesson I have yet taken to heart deeply enough.

The lesson is that there is nothing I can do that does not stem from Him creating me and allowing me to do it.

A real blindness of mine, a real sin, is that I tend to think that the prayer I engage in -- which is considerable -- is somehow consequential or effective through some merit of my own. When I think this, I am pretty quickly humbled and have to acknowledge that nothing I do, not even the drawing of a breath, occurs unless it pleases Him. My prayer only makes sense when I recognize that even it -- which, in my moments of arrogance, I think of as a form of me condescending to pray, or even more arrogantly, me summoning or invoking God in prayer -- it only occurs because He has given me life, breath, and a gift of faith to acknowledge God. Any act I do, no matter how much it glorifies God, is only possible out of His goodness, not mine.

And it is then that I realize what it is that God wants from me.

In a word, it is "surrender".

And when I am finally able to give up some arrogant part of me, some bit of pride or conceit, some way of thinking about God that involves me being great -- even in service to God -- only when I surrender all those arrogant ideas and come to him in my abject spiritual poverty and humility, am I afforded, once again, the gift of coming to Him in prayer.

For some people, prayer is as easy as drawing breath. For me, a sinful creature, even prayer is difficult, and even prayer can be made something unworthy. So great is my distance from God that I have to be reminded of His sacrifice and be made to appreciate it in a very simple way.

I pray a lot not because I am in any way great. I pray a lot only becuase I am beginning to be made aware of how small I truly am, and how great He is. And He is bringing me to Him on a very low and humble path, not because he is cruel, but because there is very much, indeed, I have to learn about his greatness.

My own sorry Lent is not enough to honor him.

I will eventually bring my Lent to the standards of The Black Fast; I know that next year must be stricter than this year, and that this year -- in terms of personal sacrifices -- was far too easy.

Naturally, I must also strive to make the prayer better and more reverent, too -- for this I was not able to do even in my own small, poor way.

The LOLCat Bible.

Less offensive than some translations I've read.

Hat tip to Ace.

Confession during the Triduum is, indeed, allowed. Priests who say it isn't are mis-reading the Missal.

However, I think that quite a few parishes won't offer it, simply out of the priests being too busy with liturgical duties. I'd say your best opportunity is to go this weekend or next and get it done. If not, call your rectory and make an appointment.

Another odd habit some churches have gotten into in Lent is removing Holy Water from the fonts at the entrance of the Church, and replacing it with stones, or sand. This irks me, as anyone who reads the Manual of Indulgences closely knows that the difference between making the Sign of The Cross with Holy Water as opposed to making the Sign of The Cross without Holy Water is four years (seven years indulgence versus three years indulgence, according to my 1957 edition of the Raccolta -- so for this little liturgical novelty, I'm supposed to spend four years in Purgatory? I always cross myself with Holy Water upon entering and leaving Church -- even if the Church is empty. (As a child, I once had my hand slapped by a nun when our Sunday school class was leaving Church after a rehearsal of some kind. As I was leaving, I stopped to cross myself with Holy Water, and she said something to the effect of "Don't play with that." Little did she know that I wasn't playing, I was merely trying to do what my old-school Jesuit-educated father had instructed me to do). Rome fortunately ruled on this, too.

UPDATE: Heh.

The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture, by Philip F. Lawler

I think this is an important book. Philip Lawler correctly identified the Boston clergy sexual abuse scandal as being composed of three distinct elements, and I think his analysis, that only one of those issues has been addressed, is correct.

Lawler's thesis is this: the scandal is not merely about priests abusing adolescents, but it is also a scandal about homosexuality in the clergy, and, most importantly, a scandal about the failure of bishops to act as faithful shepherds for their flocks. He clearly makes the point that while the sex-abuse scandal involved a small minority of priests, it involved a majority of bishops, who either acted to cover up the scandals, or who, in the cases of the bishops who resigned to avoid scandals of their own, were guilty directly of offenses themselves.

This third aspect of the scandal is certainly discussed by Catholic bloggers, but the second aspect of the scandal is a third rail both within the church and outside it. Yet the numbers are hardly reassuring. As Lawler points out, 81% of the sexual abuse was same-sex in nature, from which one of two very troubling conclusions could be drawn: if gay priests comprise the same percentage of the population that gay men comprise, then one must conclude that gay men are much more likely to abuse teenagers than straight men are; or, one most conclude that if gay men are equally as likely to abuse as straight men, then based on the numbers, one must conclude that gay men are greatly overrepresented in the Catholic priesthood, statistically speaking. I personally think it is much more the latter than the former, but I do not discount that gay men are more likely to abuse than straight men -- Catholic doctrine believes that homosexuality represents a disorder, whatever its cause, and as such, it may include behaviors, such as preying on the young, that are also disordered. That is a view so unpopular that it will likely gain me condemnation by almost everyone that reads it, but nevertheless, that is part of my hypothesis.

And the vast majority of cases, strictly speaking, do not involve pedophilia -- preying on pre-adolsecent children. The vast majority of cases involve adolescents, which is to say, young people capable of having sex physically, but who are undoubtedly emotionally and psychologically unprepared for it.

The book is not a treatise on the scandal, though -- it is a broader study of how the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston developed a culture of accommodation in order to preserve institutional privileges at the expense of the faith. There are many turning points and villains to be found. The candidacy of John F. Kennedy, for instance, Lawler interprets as a defeat for Catholic culture -- an unusual view, but one in which it I am persuaded he is correct. For John F. Kennedy, in distancing himself from Catholicism, got himself elected President while denying the Church its proper role in shaping and influencing the issues of the day. In a sense, Kennedy did damage to future Catholic politicians and to the church by his formulation that Catholicism would not effect his decision-making as President. This same path has been trod by other Catholic politicians from Ted Kennedy to Mario Cuomo to John Kerry to Nancy Pelosi and has allowed them to deny key aspects of the Catholic faith on issues from birth control to abortion.

I also believe a special circle of Hell is prepared for Catholic theologians who gave this position political cover.

While Lawler informs us that the collapse of the Boston Archdiocese is likely to continue, given the demographics, he is hopeful that the Church may yet find its way. The key will be to renounce the institutional prerogatives in favor of the truth of the faith, and the action of the Holy Spirit in reviving the church. I think it will happen, but if the bishops in America are as corrupt as he indicates, I think that Catholicism will most likely be saved not by its bishops, but more likely from a missionary religious order from the outside, alongside the lines of the Jesuits.

I doubt it will be the Jesuits, though, as I think their order has become far too corrupt and incapable of self-reform.

At any rate, I highly recommend this book.

I will of course, start with the obvious disclaimer that I am a gradate of the University of Notre Dame.

Today, I am not very proud of that fact.

The University plans to allow a staging of The Vagina Monologues on March 24th.

This is not the first time the university has allowed this play to be staged on campus; in fact, whether or not the University stages the play has become something of an annual event, a kind of liberal Catholic Kabuki Passion Play in which the administrators wring their hands, talk a great deal about how open minded they must be and how intellectually stimulating such material is, before reaching for the water basin and washing their hands of the matter. "What is truth?" they mutter, and hope that the crowd simply goes away.

"What is truth?"

It is thoroughly predictable, but this year I am not content to simply let the matter pass.

I have a question for Father Jenkins. It is about the timing of the play.

If the play is being staged on March 24th-26th, this means that there will be some setup involved beforehand.

Tell me Father, where there be rehearsals for the play during Holy Week?

Will there be a dress rehearsal on Easter Sunday itself?

Will Notre Dame faculty, students, or staff be asked to work on or assist on the production of this work of profound vulgarity on the holiest day in the Church calendar? Instead of hearing the words "The tomb is empty," the words that give the entire world hope, will we instead be treated to the recitation of all the slang words for the vagina?

Tell me, Father Jenkins, will these words be recited on Notre Dame on Easter Sunday?

(I assume this is a faithful transcript. I apologize in advance if it is not -- and I apologize even more profoundly if it is)

VAGINA. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU SAY THE WORD, IT NEVER SOUNDS LIKE A WORD YOU WANT TO SAY. IT'S A COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS, TOTALLY UNSEXY WORD. IF YOU USE IT DURING SEX, TRYING TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT YOU KILL THE ACT RIGHT THERE. I'M WORRIED WHAT WE CALL IT AND DON'T CALL IT. IN GREAT NECK, NEW YORK, THEY CALL IT A "PUSSYCAT". A WOMAN TOLD ME THERE, HER MOTHER USED TO TELL HER, "DON'T WEAR PANTIES, DEAR, UNDERNEATH YOUR PAJAMAS, YOU NEED TO AIR OUT YOUR PUSSYCAT." IN WESTCHESTER, THEY CALL IT A "POOKIE". IN NEW JERSEY, A "TWAT". THERE'S "POWDER BOX", A "POOCHI", A "POOPI", A "PEE-PEE", A "POOPALU", A "POONINANA" AND A "PICHE". THERE'S "TOADIE", "DEE-DEE", "NISHI", "DIGNITY", "COOCHIE SNORCHER", "COOTER", "LABBE", "GLADYS SIEGELMAN", "VA", "WEE-WEE", "WHORESPOT", "NAPPY DUGOUT", "MONGO", "MONKEY BOX", "PAJAMA", "FANNYBOO", "MUSHMELLOW", "GHOULIE", "POSSIBLE", "TAMALE", "TOTTITA", "CONNIE", A "MIMI" IN MIAMI, A "SPLIT KNISH" IN PHILADELPHIA. AND A "SCHMENDE" IN THE BRONX. I AM WORRIED ABOUT VAGINAS.

Father Jenkins assures us that there will be a balanced dicussion afterwards:

"My decision on this matter,” Father Jenkins said, “arises from a conviction that it is an indispensable part of the mission of a Catholic university to provide a forum in which multiple viewpoints are debated in reasoned and respectful exchange--always in dialogue with faith and the Catholic tradition--even around highly controversial topics. Notre Dame's policy on controversial events rests on the conviction that truth will emerge from reasoned consideration of issues in dialogue with faith, and that we will educate Catholic leaders not by insulating our students from controversial views, but by engaging these views energetically, in light of Catholic teachings.”

Father Jenkins referenced a common policy he and the university’s department heads had agreed upon. The policy says that part of the purpose of a university is “to foster the free and open discussion of controversial issues.” It states that all involved in a controversial event must ensure it has academic merit, multiple viewpoints, appropriate balance, and a reasoned and respectful exchange of ideas. Event sponsors must make clear that their sponsorship is not an endorsement, and if the event is relevant to a significant issue of Catholic teaching, a knowledgeable presentation of Catholic teaching must be included in the event.

Father Jenkins's position certainly seems reasonable enough -- until you read the script.

What possible good comes from putting a balanced panel discussing Catholic views on the same stage as this pornographic litany? Catholic theology is a complex, thoughtful and highly rational worldview with a pedigree that is two thousand years old, and at the center of which every Catholic believes are truths revealed by God Himself. It forms the foundation of Western civilization, and the yardstick against which all political systems, religions, and creeds are to be measured.

Perhaps you will allow me a metaphor.

Imagine we are at, say, something like the Paris Exhibition.

Imagine, if you will, that we are seated in a crowd, and a man in a white coat, who we are told is a reputable French scientist, gets on the stage. The scientist tells us, "We are going to watch a performance in which a circus clown defecates into a bucket -- and afterwards, we will bring the historical platinum meter bar out from its vault in Sevres to measure it."

Would we assume the scientist was sane? We might assume the clown is -- he is, after, all, a clown. He dresses in motley, goes where he is told, and does what pleases the crowd. But what would we make of the scientist? Would we assume that there would be great scientific benefits to humanity to be gained from a detailed analysis of the clown's effluence? Would we not, after a moment's consideration, opt to pass on the whole sordid display? And if we were to denounce the whole episode, for whom would our harshest judgment be reserved -- the clown or the scientist?

So tell me, after we have considered the merits of the "split knish" and the "wee-wee", Father Jenkins, are we to bring out Fr. McBrien and have a serious discussion of the merits of Humanae Vitae? I myself would like to see it; I for one would like to see which document Fr. McBrien prizes more -- the Vatican encyclical or the Eve Ensler play.

"We choose Barabbas!"

Admittedly, though, my tastes are bit perverse.

I think that in this case, Father Jenkins, you ought to simply say "We need to reschedule the play to a time more appropriate."

And if they press you and ask when that is, Father, the correct reply is "After my funeral Mass."

Stand with Bishop D'Arcy, Father Jenkins. A few professors might quit. To which the proper response is "If you do not support Catholic doctrine, then I trust you to show yourself out."

Is that really so difficult? Is it really so difficult to simply stand with the Church, and let the heathen rage? I think that might be a better reflection for the entire Notre Dame community during Easter week than arguing over this work of unmitigated profanity.

And by the way, when you send me your thoughtful letter about the University Fund this year, be sure to look for my reply. It will come, special delivery.

Keep your eye out for the clown carrying a bucket.

. . . Because they engage in straw-man arguments on subjects they know little or nothing about.

My list is not only shorter, it's far more charitable.

I won't engage all of WriterDD's arguments, as I do not feel I have to answer for people not of my denomination. But I will answer the Catholic ones.

The Pope in [sic] infallible, even though some Popes overturn what previous Popes said (Catholics)

Catholics do not believe the Pope is infallible. That is a gross mischaracterization and oversimplification of what the Catholic faith believes, and which was explained at the first Vatican Council in 1870. To put it accurately, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit preserves the Pope from error when he rules on matters of faith and morals. I'll let Wikipedia's summary of it stand as the "good enough" answer.

In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. For all such infallible teachings, the Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that the teaching will be received by all Catholics.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.

According to The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism: "In reality, the pope seldom uses his power of infallibility......rather than being some mystical power of the pope, infallibility means the church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the church."[2] Since the 1870 solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I, this power has been used only once: in 1950 when Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.

As for Popes overturning what other Popes have advanced, I can only say "Oh, do tell." Please provide an example of where one Pope has overruled another on something in the Deposit of Faith. And stammering "Um, Galileo?" is not a correct answer.

Satan, or the devil, is a real being who can hurt you (Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Catholics and many others)

Indeed, we believe that the Devil is a real being, and indeed, that he can hurt you. I would suggest you study the history of the sacramental of exorcism if you doubt that the Devil, and his agents, exist. Contact the Catholic archbishop in your part of the world, and ask if you can meet his diocesan exorcist. A Spanish journalist followed Fr. Fortea around a while back, and found the experience somewhat disturbing.

When you eat dry bread in church, it turns into the flesh of Jesus in your stomach (Catholics)

By "dry", I assume you mean unleavened. And no, we do not believe it turns into the flesh of Jesus Christ in our stomachs, as it is Jesus Christ upon the altar, or if it is never consumed, or if it is placed in a monstrance and worshipped. We do not assume that man's stomach has anything to do with the consecration of the host. The parishoner and the priest effect no magic. The action is done by the Holy Spirit during the consecration, enabling us to participate not only in Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, but also at the Last Supper where the sacrament was first given by Christ, and commanded to be performed for all eternity by priests acting in His name. In short, we believe in something far greater, more mysterious, and strange than your unworthy little cynical statement indicates.

Miracles include Jesus and Mary appearing in toast and making statues cry (Catholics)

Really? Do tell. The Vatican has certified a miracle involving Jesus appearing in toast? As for statues, well, I suppose one could get involved in a discussion of the practice of venerating icons, which is an ancient practice of the Church, but I'm not really open to it. Why should I be? If I made an outrageous mischaracterization such as "Buddhists are so stupid they worship statues of fat men" I would not expect a Buddhist to seriously engage me on the topic. So instead, I'll ask for an example. Do a little research, WriterDD, and let me know of these miracles you allege that I believe in.

Lying to kids about contraception and safe sex is a good idea (Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Catholics, and others)

I would simply ask that you name the method of contraception that is 100% effective. Catholics teach that condoms fail, and that the pill is not always reliable; nor are its side effects completely without harm. Which part of that is untrue? As far as moral teaching goes, Catholics believe that sex is reserved for marriage between man and a woman, and should a woman become pregnant, married or not, that it is wrong to kill the child. Go back fifty years and that's what pretty much everone believed. Except, of course, for lovely characters like Margaret Sanger, who were lauding the positive aspects of abortion from the viewpoint of the eugenics. Do we really want to get into a discussion of who was telling the truth on that debate?

It is one thing to engage people of faith on the merits. It is another to mock them out of simple bigotry.

I'm trying to tell you, WriterDD, that you are doing the latter. And it isn't appreciated. A dose of skepticism is a good thing, for it prevents us from foolishness. But skepticism isn't a very nourishing creed.

Try a little charity instead.

And I won't say "we need more of these" for surely, we do not need or wish anyone to be excommunicated.

What we need are more Catholics that are obedient to the faith.

But failing that, we certainly need bishops who will defend the faith from scandal. I think there is at least one Catholic archbishop in America who understands that.

He's in St. Louis, and I support him fully in this.

Hat tip to Carl Olson.

Title a bit harsh? Oh, my apologies . . .

Once again, after being told not to provide a platform, a Catholic university provides a platform.

Yes, an actual platform

The glowing coverage from Villanova's student newspaper can be found here.

The turnout was much higher than anticipated by both the Obama campaign as well as Villanova administration. The student reaction inside the building to Mrs. Obama's appearance was also overwhelmingly positive.

"The rally was a wonderful experience. I can relate to Michelle Obama's background, so she really spoke to my situation. I think she represented her husband and his campaign very well," said sophomore Richard Riley after the rally.

Moloch, Phoenician fire-deity, was also "thrilled" at what a good job Michelle Obama did. He did, though, express some disappointment that no children were shoved into his fiery bronze maw during the event. "I'm tired of lip-service," he reportedly said. "Kneel and worship. Feed the fire."

"I was glad that she addressed No Child Left Behind, a specific policy issue," said senior Madeline Dorger. "I was happy to hear her mention student loans and the way that they affect the career decisions of recent gradates," said senior Amy Knop-Narbutis.

Huitzilopochtli, the Nahuatl hummingbird deity, was glad to hear that the issue of Obama's relentless support for abortion was somehow missed. "I too, leave no child behind. Walk up the steps of my ziggurat, and surrender your beating heart to the stone knife. Fire awaits. Burning, cleansing, fire. I have spoken."

There was, however, some opposition to the Obama campaign before the rally. A few protesters, including Christians against Obama, made their presence known outside the Fieldhouse by voicing their displeasure with Barack and Michelle Obama's abortion stance as students were filing in.

Beelzebub, Canaanite Lord of the Flies, expressed comtempt that Villanova had not yet eliminated all opposition to his glorious reign. "Bah. Christians. And did you see how they were dressed? How unfashiobable."

Villanova Students for Barack Obama, a recently formed chapter of the national campaign, only had this week to plan the rally. Student members, Oscar Abello and Cait Taylor introduced Mrs. Obama before her speech.

Millstones? Line forms on the left, Oscar and Cait. It's a long one, but I'm sure there are plenty.

Am going to be busy, I doubt I will blog much.

As my posts of late have been marked with a certain anger and lack of charity, probably just as well.

I have to come to realize that the central battle in our culture is essentially one over truth. Can truth be known, or is it unknowable?

I think that our culture has come to the conclusion that truth is unknowable -- that it either doesn't exist, or is a relative thing. If this is so, then it follows that all discussion is essentially reduced to a discussion of politics. We see this in our universities most clearly of all; where subject after subject falls to political analysis. English therefore becomes not a discipline about the language, but a discipline about politics. Philosophy becomes not a search for ther truth through reason, but a discussion of politics. All knowledge is seen as if through a prism of cynicism, a prism of cynicism ending in an 'ism.

If there is no truth, all that is left is reason and power, and as on Orwell's Animal Farm, we know how that ends. It ends in the destruction of individual rights and of freedom. It ends in the rule of the pigs.

Some people look at that end, and say "So let us be the strongest pigs possible." I look at it and say "There simply must be more; that way is false, and leads to our destruction."

I have come to embrace that truth is knowable, but not through reason alone -- it must be revealed and received through faith. Central to reception of truth is an act of humility and the recognition that man is simply not God. The fruits of that act, no matter how simply made, are great.

Our country hangs all of our rights on the simple notion that there is a creator, and from him we derive inalienable rights. For otherwise, no rebellion against tyranny can be justified. So great was the honor and dignity of our country's founders that this simple truth made them fight a war against one of the world's least tyrannies.

Today, we instead seem unable to resist the worst of tyrannies.

But we don't seem to see it anymore.

I have stumbled across revealed truth. I am in the habit of saying that I believe in two propositions -- "I believe that Christ is who he says he was" and that "I believe The Catholic church is what it says it is." I can now reduce that proposition to one, for I have worked out for myself how the latter can be deduced from the former. Quite simply, it is that Christ would not permit his Church to fail; lest we in the future, 2000 years from his crucifixion, be denied his grace through the failures of men. And if I believe he let it get degraded to the point where 1500 years in, the truth was unrecognizable except to Luther, I would have to think his mercy was little and that the souls condemned to hell are many. I simply do not think he would permit such a thing. He did not intend to reveal truth for an instant, and then hide it under a dirty bushel. He intends our salvation, therefore his truth must be visible today. As a consequence, while I can recognize that many sects and many faiths contain elements of truth, those truths are only true in that they are either derived from the Church, or in accord with the Church.

All other propositions can be judged in accordance with the simple truth.

To the extent that anything denies Christ, it is untrue. To the extent that anything attacks the Church, it is untrue. And while the church is in need of constant renewal, for the world is not perfect, and Christ has not yet returned to relieve the Church from its battle, all that renewal must come from the Spirit within. And the Spirit is eternal -- it does not change its mind, it does not bow to the blasphemous minds and hearts of men, or fail because its priests are sinners or even the occasional Borgia pope takes a bribe. The spirit constantly renews the church so that the sacraments are effective and the truth may be revealed to all.

As I look at our debased and degraded culture, the shocking immorality of our art and literature, the falsehoods and sophistries pouring out from our universities, and the naked worship of political power, I feel I have to retreat a little bit more into the bastion of truth.

Were I only to read books that have an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat, were I only to retreat ino the library of the fathers and the saints and the sacred liturgy, I would still be a vain, corrupt, lazy, gluttonous, slothful man. But I would not be living through denying the truth. I would know that I was surrounded by truth. And at some level at least be nourishing the soul.

So, with these thoughts on my mind, you might not hear from me for a bit.

But trust me, I am well.

That Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., absolutely hates polar bears.

Seriously, though, I think this is going on my reading list very soon.

In the Preface, Cardinal Dulles explains why he wrote the book, "In recent years I have experienced difficulty in finding a clear, concise, up-to-date manual on this subject, even though there exists an abundance of literature on different aspects of the teaching office. ... Most students, not to mention members of the general public, are very unclear about the respective authority of various teachers in the Church. Very few understand the different types and degrees of authority attaching to various types of documents. Most of the faithful are likewise confused about the biblical sources and the historical development of the Magisterium as a normative organ of doctrinal authority."

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog, What Does The Prayer Really Say, cleans up at the Catholic Blog Awards.

Winner in Best Aplogetic Blog, Best Blog by Clergy, Best Individual Blog, Best Insider News, Best Overall, Best Written, Most Informative, Most Spiritual, and Smartest.

He is, without a doubt, a must read.

And I'd point out, if the Titanic had been facing Ad Orientem, it would never have hit the iceberg.

UPDATE: Fr. Z's humble response to all the praise is here. He's not exactly a weepy Sally Field, and offers many kind thoughts about the Catholic blogs he reads.

The price for a Catholic Church in Saudi Arabia?

Recognizing Mohammed as a prophet.

Riyadh, 20 March (AKI) - No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.

While Saudi mediators are working with the Vatican on negotiations to allow places of religious worship, some experts believe it will not occur without this recognition.

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

"I haven taken part in several meetings related to Islamic-Christian dialogue and there have been negotiations on this issue," he said.

"It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."

This is an impossibility, because Catholicism does not hold that there are any prophets after Christ, who is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. The fullness of God's revelation to man came in the form of Christ; simply put, after Christ walked the Earth and redeemed man through th cross, God simply has no need of prophets. There is no revelation that has taken place after Christ that is necessary to man's salvation; any revelation after the Resurrection is simply a private revelation, and the Catholic church cannot and will not compel belief in private revelations. It will not mandate belief in the apparitions at Fatima, for instance, even though clearly the Church, in practice, believes in the apparitions at Fatima.

In addition, Christianity will certainly never recognize Mohammed even as a saint, because Islam denies the divinity of Christ. The Church cannot even admit the holiness of Mohammed's private "revelations", because those "revelations" clearly contradict Scripture and the teachings of the Church. It is a simple impossibility that both Islam and Christianity can both stand as revealed truths; God cannot contradict himself, and God cannot lie.

So whence the source of Mohammed's visions? A Christian cannot believe they were from God, which leaves us with two possibilities: Mohammed had no visions from God, in which case Islam is a pious fraud; or the visions came from a source that was unholy, in which case Islam is, from its inception, a work of the Devil.

I personally believe the former. It does not give me joy to say it, for I recognize that to say such a thing is to invite the risk of retribution; it is dangerous to tell the Muslim world that at its core is a falsehood, for the Muslim world has in it a percentage of fanatics who demand death for people who do not believe in it. I also recognize that Islam is practiced by something like a billion people; it is not my intent to denigrate piously held beliefs, especially when those beliefs contain some elements of truth -- I think it is far better to believe in Islam than to believe in nothing.

But imagine the Pope saying "Very well, Mohammed is a prophet, let me have my church." It might seem reasonable for Islam to demand such a thing, but consider if the positions were reversed, and if in every mosque in Christendom stood a crucifix, and a plaque proclaiming "Jesus Christ was God and Man, two natures in one person." Imagine such a thing being mandated by force of law. Surely that would be repellent to Muslims, and they would vent their anger in the most strident terms imaginable. Worse yet, for a Muslim to admit such a thing would be a monstrous act of blasphemy, as they understand Allah.

And yet, that is the very bargain they wish us to make. If anything, it indicates to me the level of respect which Islam holds for Christianity -- the answer is, not very much. Christianity holds Islam in much higher regard, for we allow mosques to be built freely in the west, under the protection of the law. For Islam to hold Christianity in as much regard, one of two things would have to happen -- either they would have to admit Christian churches to be freely built in Saudi Arabia, or they would respectfully close every single mosque in the west, understanding that reciprocity is the first sign of mutual respect.

Since the Saudi government will not allow the former, I suggest that they adopt the latter course.

Close your mosques, and then we can resume discussions as equals.

UPDATE: Not, of course, that I am arguing that course of action seriously, but to merely point out the problem. We allow mosques in the west because of certain things we believe about the rights of the individual in making up his or her mind. While I believe that the Catholic faith is the truth, and were I a king and we were following the principle that the people take on the religion of their ruler, which was held throughout Europe for some time, my subjects would be Catholics. But given that God holds free will in such high esteem (as men may choose evil or good), I'd like to think that I would also hold to the principle of freedom of religion. A man may, provided he does no harm to his neighbor or to the morals of the state, practice his own religion. I will, of course, do what I can to convince him of the merits of Catholicism. But Islam allows for no discussion, though in theory, in conquered lands, it admits the religions "of the book" under highly unfavorable terms (high taxation, no right to hold public office, lesser legal status, etc.). This means that all discussions are held --at best -- under greatly unfavorable terms, under significant duress. Frankly, that is not a situation I would permit; I would admit no duress. If that is what Islam wants, it will have to resort to force of arms to try to compel it, and I would simply say, good luck in trying. You have never succeeded in defeating the West by force of arms, and should you try to conquer Rome, I would be content to see Mecca become a smoking ember before I would see the See of Peter become a mosque. The first thing Islam has to face is that if you address the Catholic Church, the church may, arguendo, permit those discussions on equal terms, though it considers no creed its equal. But we will not come to you as supplicants, or admit any terms in the discussion that involve the renunciation of the power and authority of Christ. We do not ask you to accept that Allah is a Trinity, either. We simply ask that should we build a church in your land, you extend to it the same priviliges that we extend to thousands of mosques in the west -- the freedom to build it, and to go there and worship, without fear of being murdered or having said church burned to the ground. We extend to you reciprocity, not because we believe your faith is true, for it conflicts at far too many points with our own for us to admit it. But we extend and ask for reciprocity because we believe, as you believe, that we were created in God's image, and that affords us certain dignities, even if we occasionally shame that dignity by the occasional blasphemy. We afford you the opportunity to repent in God's good time, and we ask that you allow us the same prerogative. And if you do not see why you ought to do that, then indeed I would ask you to to be men enough to close your mosques in the West, for the discussion is ended to our mutual loss.

My meditation this day will be on Paul's letter to the Philippians 2:5-11.

5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,
8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I so confess.