Is divorce ever a good thing?

Tim Harford, writing in The Undercover Economist on Slate, thinks so. The article is well-written and thought-out, and worth reading. The money quote for me:

[Research shows that] the new laws had an unexpected—but rational—effect: by giving women an exit-option, they gave men stronger incentives to behave well inside a marriage. The result? Domestic violence fell by almost a third, and the number of women murdered by their partners fell by ten percent. Female suicide also fell.

Having lived through the fallout from my mother's dogged commitment to her toxic marriage, followed by my own unintentional following in her footsteps, I cannot but agree with his conclusion to that paragraph:

It is a reminder that the binding commitment of marriage has costs as well as benefits.

Harford writes,

While the divorce rate has been falling for three decades, it would be a shame if it fell too far. Justin Wolfers comments, "We know there exists something called an optimal divorce rate, and we're 100 percent sure it isn't zero."

Read the whole thing.

H/T The Anchoress.

A passionate rant

One of my regularly occasional stops when grazing blogs is Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor. He recently mentioned the Jane Austen presentations on Masterpiece Theatre, and seguéd into a review of Karl Keating's recent newsletter in which he opines about "soul mates":

Liking is something that "just happens." Loving is something we have control over. Liking is a spontaneous emotional reaction. Loving is an act of the will. You never will like everyone, but you can love anyone.

OK, I'm with him so far as that goes... but English is poverty-stricken when it comes to the word "love." There are lots of kinds of love - and some of them are not willed.

What seems incongruous is that "you can love anyone." I am not saying that you will, because in all probability you won't. But it is theoretically possible in a way that liking everyone is not.

Many years ago, when I first practiced law, I one day was appointed to represent a rapist at a hearing. He was perhaps the only person I ever have met who seemed to have an entirely dormant conscience. I found not the least thing likeable in him, and I knew that, unless he changed dramatically and unexpectedly, I never could like him. But I also knew that I could love him, because love is an act of the will.

Loving is not an act we carry out very successfully. I don't remember feeling any love toward that rapist--pity, perhaps, but not love. Yet I must have realized that I could have loved him, had I willed it. A saint would have willed it, but not even a saint could have willed himself into liking him, absent the rapist reforming and becoming likeable.

Of course. But already Mr. Keating's words betray a potential for deeper understanding. Saints generally give up pretty quickly on forcing themselves to do anything like love the unlovable. They love God and the souls He created, however not-Godlike their material selves are in that moment. If you force yourself to do anything without being conscious of God's love, you will soon exhaust yourself. Just sayin', is all.

In summary, then, when it comes to basically good people whom we meet, it is possible for us to love any of them. This even applies to prospective spouses, and here I come to the real point I wish to make.

That was an abrupt transition ... from the spiritually evolved ability to love the unlovable, to considering a prospective spouse, with only a "when it comes to basically good people whom we meet..." - but that's a stylistic nitpick, so let's soldier on:

As you know, Catholic Answers hosts chastity talks by various speakers. Such talks are aimed at young audiences--high school and college students, chiefly--and, by necessity, the speakers themselves are young. At least they are still years away from middle age.

Some speakers who have spoken for us, when first starting out, told their young audiences that somewhere out there was a Prince or Princess Charming, someone fated from all eternity to be a young person's perfect match. Listeners were told something like this: "Save yourself for that one person that God has set aside just for you."

When I learned that this is what was being said, I told our speakers to cut it out--because it wasn't true. It sounded romantic, and it sounded pious, but it wasn't true. It left each young listener thinking that there was one and only one person whom he could love and have a happy marriage with and that, if he waited long enough, God would arrange for the couple to meet.

That's not how real life works. When I have a chance to speak to young people, I shock them by saying, "Within easy driving distance, there are a hundred people whom you could marry and have an equally happy life with."

Yes, it is shocking - because it's not true. (What is 'easy driving distance,' anyway?) He backpedals with, "Of course, there also are a hundred or a thousand with whom they might be miserable" - but, as they say, the damage has been done. But wait - there's more:

My point was that a marriage is what you make of it, under grace. In the old, old days, marriages often were arranged--and often turned out very well, no worse than the average marriage entered into by people who imagined they were marrying a Prince or Princess Charming.

When you're talking about something as important as marriage, I think there's a bit more substantiation needed than a careless statement like that. How does he know? And what does "turned out very well" mean?

This does not, of course, mean that every match is a good one or that every match is wisely entered into. (I am reminded of Dr. Johnson's remark, when told that a man who had been very unhappy in marriage had remarried immediately after his wife had died: "It was the triumph of hope over experience.") But it does mean that fairy tales should be left to children.

It does no harm for a ten-year-old girl to dream of a Prince Charming, but half her life will be wasted if she still thinks, at thirty-five, that she should wait for the appearance of a Prince Charming whom God has reserved for her and that she should let pass other prospects with whom, in fact, she could be sufficiently happy.

There's only one word for nonsense like this.

BALDERDASH.

One needs to approach marriage like any other vocation: with prayer, soul-searching, and thoughtful observation and learning.

I suppose a reasonable analogy would be when one called to religious life thinks about whether they want to join an order or, in the case of priests, become a diocesan priest. At one point I was discerning a vocation, myself. (And it was one of those where I often prayed, "would you please let me alone, Lord? Go pick on somebody else!" Heh.) But, in the course of my discernment, I learned that, were I to enter religious life, I would be happiest as a Discalced Carmelite - didn't figure out if the active life would suit me more than the contemplative, because at that point my family needed me and I had to abandon the project - whereas the Benedictine or Franciscan charism are not attractive to me.

One can't just "be a nun" any more than one can just "be a wife." Your vocation involves aspects which you must choose ultimately based on your heart and what you learn through prayer, meditation, and fact-finding.

In the same way, one needs to be very discriminating when it comes to one's spouse. To add to the difficulty, there is no time of one's life when it is more difficult to think clearly. But the one you marry will not only be your life's companion; you are engaging the co-creator of your children and the one to whom you will entrust the raising of those precious lives.

I believe Mr. Keating's intentions are the best, but I believe he is mistaken. I think his message to young people is erroneous, and risks hurting lives. His message discourages faith - the kind of warm, confiding faith which gets one through so many difficult years as a youngster.

It gave me such comfort to know that God had in mind the right vocation for me, and, in due time, if I was open to experience and listening to Him, I would find out what it would be. To say that there is no one He has picked out for us belittles His reach and His power and, most of all, His love. Either He is God, or He's not. If He is, let us trust Him.

It does no harm for a ten-year-old girl to dream of a Prince Charming, but half her life will be wasted if she still thinks, at thirty-five, that she should wait for the appearance of a Prince Charming whom God has reserved for her and that she should let pass other prospects with whom, in fact, she could be sufficiently happy.

Some of us are destined for the single life. The only way to find out is by the absence of a suitable spouse. Some of us are destined for religious life, and to marry without conviction of vocation will keep us from that. Life has those disappointments which, if patiently and prayerfully endured, can be turned around into joy beyond description. Mr. Keating may not mean his "shocking" words this way, but I hear, and those kids hear, "Just because God has been inside your soul, that doesn't mean He knows what you want and need. Even if He did, He wouldn't care, and He wouldn't (or couldn't) do anything about it. You're on your own. Just go find someone and quit dreaming."

Let's hear from a Doctor of the Church:

Thérèse, the little Spouse of Jesus, loves Him for Himself; she only looks on the Face of her Beloved to catch a glimpse of the Tears which delight her with their secret charm. She longs to wipe away those Tears, or to gather them up like priceless diamonds with which to adorn her bridal dress. Jesus! . . . Oh! I would so love Him! Love Him as He has never yet been loved! . . .(from her autobiography)

That was her vocation: to love Jesus. And she did, as fiercely as anyone ever has. She fought to be with Him and did so at a very young age. She knew what she wanted and would settle for nothing less.

That, my friends, is passion.

Is Pope Benedict XVI a passionate man? Let's see: he's 80 years old, but he works like a horse and does everything he can to be the kind of leader a Pope should be. He loves God, his brother, Mozart and cats. But, brothers and sisters, he is passionately in love with God, and passionate about serving God's people.

Do you want a priest who isn't passionate about God and his vocation?

Do you want a spouse who isn't passionately in love with you???

How can Mr. Keating counsel those with the vocation to marry to give up the idea that there is one person they are meant to love, and instead resolve to be content with only "...sufficiently happy"?

If God does not, or will not, or cannot give us what we need day by day, then it's God's intimate, caring, miraculous, all-powerful love which is the fairy tale.

This from an apologist.

God help us.

"His back to the people" - here we go again

Fr. Z. goes over an AP article on the Mass which Benedict XVI offered in the Sistine Chapel, in which the temporary little altar was not used, but the original altar, the design of which fits in with breathtaking beauty.

The breathless "it's a break with tradition!" thing is just too funny. It's got some of us laughing our apses off.

St. Thérèse has done it again

You have to see this to believe it.

The parish of St. Thérèse of Lisieux in Alhambra has established the Extraordinary Form as a regular Sunday mass at 1:00pm. This is not surprising. The parish is under the care of the Discalced Carmelites (there are three establishments in the immediate area), and has had perpetual adoration for a long time.

They are the first to be listed on the archdiocesan website, below the list of those Masses established under the previous "free and generous" policy. {polite cough}

I cannot begin to imagine with what chagrin the Archdiocese resigned itself to posting that Mass.

(One notes that the page is still called "indult" - http://www.archdiocese.la/ directories/ parishes/ indult.html. And, of course, the link is to "Tridentine (sic) Masses".)

The parish was actually named for St. Thérèse before her canonization in May, 1925. From their parish history:

On January 26, 1925, the [Discalced Carmelite] Fathers were able to take up permanent residence in a newly acquired home at 515 Vega Street, purchased for $37,000. (the house had been built in 1899 by Seth Champion). The Carmelites blessed their new home on January 27, dedicating it to Blessed Therese, thus becoming the first Irish mission of the Discalced Carmelites.

St. Thérèse is my patron saint. Her intercession is often like her life and her Little Way: hidden, easy to discount, full of deep meaning, and powerful for those who are aware of it. What she asks, she gets. I have no doubt whatever that she asked our good God for her parish to be the first listed on the Archdiocesan as offering the Extraordinary Form of Mass on a regular basis, and I have no doubt He was glad to comply, that those who love that form of Mass may find her parish and have solace there.

When her relics were brought to Alhambra, I had the great joy and blessing of making a visit. I made a special prayer that day for courage and perseverance, two virtues which seem entirely lacking in my character when it comes to my Faith. I could not persevere when things went so far wrong after Vatican II; I hadn't the courage to stand up for what I knew was right. I was spending so much time protecting myself against spiritual corruption that I finally fled. During her visit in 1997 it seemed like there would be no end to the nonsense; the Catholic Church was unrecognizable; where was Jesus? So I was led by God at that time to ask St. Thérèse as a special favor for courage and perseverance.

I would like to say that I was given those virtues, but that's not what happened at all. I'm just as weak as ever ... weaker, even. My courage is in Jesus. I rely on Jesus alone. If there's anything courageous to be done in my life, I do it entirely in His strength and guidance. My perseverance is a kind of stubborn resolve to love Him no matter what. Archbishop Mahony and certain Jesuits and all that crowd can do what they will; I shall not quit loving Jesus. Nor will I quit seeing Jesus as the Christ, the King. I kneel in His presence.

Archbishop Mahony finds that disobedient, and therefore scandalous. So I don't give scandal. I don't kneel at Mass. I can't, because I'm not there.

But I do kneel at the Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

Jesus would be within His rights to annihilate me for my cowardice. Instead, He has graciously condescended to give us Pope Benedict XVI and has supported and blessed him in his arduous work. I was astonished at Summorum Pontificum - and deeply humbled. And now ... this. At a parish near enough to me to remove all excuses from attending. The parish named for my patroness, St. Thérèse.

I asked for courage and perseverance. Instead, the more acutely aware I am of my weakness and my need every moment for God's love and forbearance, the more I am given.

Bank of America + Countrywide? Eeeewww!!

Bank of America is set to acquire Countrywide.

I have a credit card with BofA which I am doggedly paying off. Once that's done I shall never use it again. I warn everyone away from the place. They are the absolute worst chiselers, always just on this side of the law. Let's just say you'd have to compartmentalize well to work at BofA, or go through some pretty elaborate rationalizations ... because if you do business with them, you're supporting an organization which is really out to get people. I don't like their attitude. It's the kind of bullying that gets shrugged off with "We're acting within the law."

Countrywide ... unfortunately, my home loan is with them. They have a fascinating little trick associated with the "pick your own payment date" deal. I won't detail it here. It's legal, I suppose, but if I were foolish enough to use them again for credit I'd pay more than I have to for interest - and I'd never know why. I found out by accident by taking the time to ask some open-ended questions of one of those kids who call trying to sell you a line of credit. If you have that option, chat up one of those kids and see if you can get them to tell you your internal account status. Not what's reported to the credit bureaus, but what they see on their screens.

Separately, they had a scary computer issue right after I got my loan. I spent HOURS on the phone with reps - one of whom actually burst into tears because she'd had so many people call HER in tears. Those of us who had that twice-a-month payment option - which Countrywide apparently dreamed up without involving their programmers - were getting threatening letters from Countrywide because our loan payments were going into a black hole in their computer system. So far as Countrywide knew, no payment had been received - yet my account showed it had been withdrawn. The suspense was, would we get it straightened out this month BEFORE the report went to the credit bureaus? That was not fun.

I just hope BofA has done some serious due diligence. I'm afraid they'll find some horrible messes buried in the computer systems at Countrywide ... the kind that class actions are made of.

Thank you, Papa Benedict

Reading various items on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's most excellent blog, I'm humbled and grateful at the fruit of the Motu Proprio.

Fr. Ze has excerpted an article written by Fr. Michael Kemper in America. I've copied the following from Fr. Z's blog. As you read, keep in mind that this is a self-identified liberal priest writing for one of the most liberal Catholic publications.

He opens by describing how he was approached by some parishioners with a request for the Extraordinary Form. At first, he objected, citing his unfamiliarity with Latin. But ...

My original cranky demurral crumbled under the force of my own pastoral self-understanding, which had been largely shaped by the Second Vatican Council. As a promoter of the widest range of pluralism within the church, how could I refuse to deal with an approved liturgical form? As a pastor who has tried to respond to people alienated by the perceived rigid conservatism of the church, how could I walk away from people alienated by priests like myself—progressive, “low church” pastors who have no ear for traditional piety? An examination of conscience revealed an imbalance in my pastoral approach: a gracious openness to the left (like feminists, pro-choice advocates, people cohabiting and secular Catholics) and an instant skepticism toward the right (traditionalists).

As he explored the Rite, he realized that

I had never noticed as a boy, I discovered that the old rite’s priestly spirituality and theology were exactly the opposite of what I had expected. Whereas I had looked for the “high priest/king of the parish” spirituality, I found instead a spirituality of “unworthy instrument for the sake of the people.”

The old Missal’s rubrical micromanagement made me feel like a mere machine, devoid of personality; but, I wondered, is that really so bad? I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant. When I saw a photo of the old Latin Mass in our local newspaper, I suddenly recognized the rite’s ingenious ability to shrink the priest. Shot from the choir loft, I was a mere speck of green, dwarfed by the high altar. The focal point was not the priest but the gathering of the people. And isn’t that a valid image of the church, the people of God?

Please pray for this priest.

I would say that his experience can be shared by the laity in attendance, as well.

The sad thing is that there are so many of us who lost, if not our faith, the belief that any of it mattered any more. I invested so much of myself into the Church, only to have it turn on me savagely and tell me I was wrong and deluded to love what it was up to 40 years ago. There were few priests as honest and fair-minded as Fr. Kemper.

I have only myself to blame that I didn't "stick it out" in hopes of relief in my lifetime. However, I had to make the choice of remaining in the Catholic Church and losing my faith, or withdrawing and staying close to God. Of course, that ultimated in life choices which mean I may never again be a communicating member of the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict surely knows about the thousands of us out there. I hope he prays for us, as I do for him.

But read the excerpt quoted above again, and reflect on what this means. The Catholic Church has survived, as Jesus said it would. Deo gratias!

As Christmas approaches...

my prayer is that you will have a blessed and joyous holy day.

The new job continues to be absorbing, satisfying, and sometimes anxiety-inducing. I have a good boss, and that makes all the difference. But I start early in the morning, and get home late at night. A conversation with my dear one, a bite of dinner, and sometimes a walk ... then I'm ready for bed.

I have even less time these days because I have a new puppy, whom Bear and I are raising together.

The new one was found by a family, friends of my sister's. Unfortunately, what with two dogs of their own, and plans to downsize to a condo soon, they couldn't keep the charming little fellow. My sister sent me word, along with pictures (drat her!).

He's six months old, exuberant, smart, endearingly affectionate. Last week I hit the wall with him - I asked myself and anyone who would listen: "what was I thinking?" This week is better. He's growing and learning fast. He and Bear play hard together every day. They're comfortable together.

For here, I'll call him Inky.

Inky isn't the same breed as Bear, but their genes stem from the same group at the dog show; the Herding Group.

Once again, it looks like a quiet, solitary Christmas. Perhaps my last? I do not know. God knows. I'm content in that.

Blessings to you this Christmas.

Still here...

Finding that computer at night leads me to stay up too late. Reading a book is better; i know when my body's sleepy, and it's easier to close it and go to bed.

On the computer, I'm enthralled by backgammon, the news, ... anything. I do not know when my body is tired until my head starts to ache. So I stay away.

But, once in a while, I do stop in, and read a bit to catch up.

I am grateful for all of you ... you helped me back to life, and keep me there, on my feet, moving.

God has a sense of humor

For so many years, if you tried to protest the innovations in the Mass, you could be severely reprimanded by Sister/Father/Bishop/whoever. "Vatican II required it."

Thanks to the Internet, cellphones with cameras, YouTube, blogs, etc., the truth about what Vatican II did, and did not, teach is out there.

Fr. Martin Fox is one of those serene and sane priests who is taking much of his valuable time to use the Internet as another way to teach.

He writes in his blog, Bonfire of the Vanities:

... this discussion raises a very significant question: have we got Vatican II right? If not, what would a proper celebration of the liturgy, in view of Vatican II, look like?

This really is the question facing us. This is why we’ve had so much activity, in recent years, focused on the Mass: revision in the Missal, revision of the translation, stricter norms from Rome and the bishops, a lot of re-evaluation of music and particular components of the liturgy, a greater emphasis in the seminaries on liturgy, the exhortation we’re studying, and a revival of questions about the old rite, the Mass of Pius V.

And if I haven’t piqued your interest enough already, let me do so with some more surprises, concerning what Mass according to Vatican II might look like:

Ø The Mass does not envision use of hymns as we know them. None.
Ø The Mass can be celebrated legitimately in Latin or the local language (i.e., English for us), but even where the vernacular is used, some Latin is expected.
Ø While communion under both species is encouraged, it is not required, and has some practical difficulties that may make not doing it all the time more appropriate. One of those concerns has to do with over-using "extraordinary ministers of holy communion." I.e., how "extraordinary" is a ministry if it is routine?
Ø There is nothing wrong with the "old" architecture.
Ø While the priest facing the people is a well known change since Vatican II, the Council did not require it nor even mention it! In fact, what happened was that 1964 document, from Rome, proposing implementation steps, merely said the following: "It is better for the main altar to be constructed away from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people" (Inter Oecumenici, 91).

Father points out to a commenter that this last was not from a document from the Council.

We are blessed to have the right to have reverent worship again ... whether in the ordinary or extraordinary form of the Latin rite.

POD things

I'm probably the last person in the entire blogosphere to "get" this.

I knew this:

P.O.D. = pious and overly devotional

so what are PODCAzTS, if not something to foster P.O.D. ways? ;)

(Besides his clear thinking and excellent writing, Fr. Z has the most mellifluous voice... I'm a fan - and I usually avoid podcasts, much preferring to read than listen, tyvm.)

Another new voice in the blogs

The Catholic Bibliophagist (bibliophagist, n.: a devourer of books) has set up shop on Blogger. I feel at home with her already, if only because the picture of her many full bookcases looks oh-so-familiar. However, her place is much tidier than mine, I'm afraid. :)

Alas, my linking to her will do nothing to improve her blog traffic, as my readership has (justly) dwindled to nothing since my dear one came back into my life after a 30-some-odd year absence.

However, while my distraction has been bad for the blog, it's been good for my life in general. I do so much more these days ... take care of myself better ... enjoy life in general. In fact, I'm reading again. In fact, as I type this, I have a stack of books at the end of the computer table, awaiting my attention. Here's a list, in ascending order of size (like I said: stacked), with a few notes about their provenance:

The Imitation of Christ, translated by Ronald Knox. Found at Barnes & Noble and bought with a gift card given to me by my sister for Christmas.

Elizabeth Peters, Guardian of the Horizon, paperback: Amelia Peabody is part of who I am by now, and I love the books. They are good mid-range interesting novels which delight and amuse without wearying.

The Ambassadors and The Aspern Papers and Other Stories, Henry James, in Konemann editions; A Portrait of a Lady is beside the recliner where I sit in the evening and read. All gotten some years ago at Vroman's, the excellent independent bookstore in the area.

Elizabeth Berg, We Are All Welcome Here. Got this at Borders through their three for two summer sale. Rather a remarkable novel... very enjoyable. (It's actually been read and needs to go back on the shelf.)

Picture Maker, Penina Keen Spinka - has a bookmark right in the middle. I must've put it down some months ago and utterly forgotten about it, although I remember the vivid scenes.

Lamb in Love, Carrie Brown. The cover was just so intriguing. Don't know if I'll like the story. From the Book Club, I think.

Hamlet's Dresser, Bob Smith. Same place as the previous - wherever it was.

The Iowa Review, 37/1, Spring 2007.

Glimmer Train Stories, issues 62 and 63.

The Missouri Review, Vol. 30 Number 1 2007.

The Penguin Book of Columnists, edited by Christopher Silvester. Also from Vroman's.

And that's just one miscellaneous stack collected during a puttering-through of the rest of the house the other day.

Like I said, my house isn't as tidy as the new gal's.

I don't have any Harry Potter anything. Completely off the radar so far as I'm concerned. Just not interested.

But then, like I said ... I'm just sort of coming back to myself. I might just buzz thru a H.P. someday, you never know.

Anyway, welcome to the new blogger!

How the Motu Proprio is different from what went before

Jimmy Akin reports on an article with an even-handed take on the Motu Proprio, including mostly accurate descriptions of the extraordinary form of the Latin mass.

Although it has caused a great deal of clucking in the liturgical henhouse, the Motu Proprio is actually a very mild, inoffensive thing. After all, if there is no call for the extraordinary form of the Mass, no priest will have to say it. It doesn't force anybody to do anything!

If the ordinary form of the Mass is what people want, the Motu Proprio will fade into history. No harm, no foul. I can't imagine what some people are so exercised about.

It isn't at all like what happened in the name of "The Spirit of Vatican Two." That was done forcefully and without options.

Of all the articles I've read, this is the one written by someone for whom I'd like to buy a cup of coffee and sit and talk for a while.

In my desire to return to church, I see the Latin Mass as an acceptable solution: With your back to the congregation and speaking in a dead language, you would find it difficult to tell me how to vote. Allow me to experience the joy of communion without the anguish of our modern-day differences. Bring back the Latin, and bring back an embattled believer.

I think maybe Pope Benedict has people like us in his heart.

It's not just Roman Catholics who cringe at their music sometimes

In an interview posted on ChristianityToday.com, Pioneer Doerksen relates "...my deep concern about some of what is going on in the modern worship explosion—the shallowness, the man-centeredness, the banality. I wanted to do something that was about God and his core attributes. A song like "Holy God" is a God song, not a song about our feelings toward God."

He's doing something about it - writing his own - but at least it shows that Roman Catholics who've been cringing in the pews at horrible music are not alone.

Fr. Z did a post on Cardinal O'Malley's report of the meeting about the Motu Proprio in Rome. I have preserved some of Fr. Z.'s [comments].

In my comments at the meeting I told my brother bishops that in the United States the number of people who participate in the Latin Mass even with permission is very low. [Where in the USA? It’s a big place. Could Archbishop Burke have had a different experience?] Additionally, according to the research that I did, there are only 18 priories of the Society of St. Pius X in the entire country. Therefore this document will not result in a great deal of change for the Catholics in the U.S. Indeed, interest in the Latin Mass is particularly low here in New England. [Time will tell. I have the impression that this expresses H.E.’s hope rather than his prediction. But when you are a Cardinal Archbishop, those often coincide.]

In our archdiocese, the permission to celebrate the Latin Mass has been in place for several years, and I granted permission when I was in Fall River for a Mass down on the Cape. The archdiocesan Mass [...singular…] is now at Immaculate Mary of Lourdes Parish in Newton. It is well attended, and if the need arises for an extension of that we would, of course, address it.

This issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country, [I suspect it may be more urgent than H.E. may believe.] however I think they wanted us to be part of the conversation so that we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries where the numbers are very significant. [I think that the "1" for whom the shepherd described by Jesus left the "99" was "very significant".]

I'm very glad that Fr. Z. posted this with his notes. His restraint and courtesy are a salutary model for me.

Of gnats and camels

In a column about the recent article in U.S. Catholic magazine about betrothal in which the authors wrote, "Given the current research that demonstrates that not all cohabitors are alike, we propose the re-introduction of an ancient ritual of betrothal for nuptial cohabitors, followed by intensive marriage preparation in the Catholic pastoral tradition," Archbishop Chaput wrote

... I believe in the intelligence and good will of the authors. I also believe that their argument is bafflingly naïve. If the Church, in her reflection on the Gospel, has always taught that sex outside marriage is morally wrong, then for the Church to now bless “nuptial cohabiters” amounts to colluding in sin. Ritualizing a sinful behavior, or calling it a nicer name, does not change its substance. The very last thing we need in a society already awash in confused sexuality is a strategy for accommodating it.

Now, before I go any further, let me say that I deeply respect and admire Archbishop Chaput. Having said that, I would remind him that

"...the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin."

Oh, no, wait - it doesn't.

Actually, in all fairness, this document did not, in any way, rescind the requirement of Friday abstinence. (However, in its own way, it is an example of the dangers of naiveté, isn't it?)

(And, before I get comments about tradition and custom vs. law, let me point out that the authors of the article base their argument on the idea that cohabitation and marriage are matters of custom rather than law. Therefore, they would say that it's as useless to condemn premarital cohabitation as it was to condemn eating meat on Fridays.)

There has been much reference to "The Spirit of Vatican II" in the last 40 years. In its usual sense, this phrase uses "spirit" in the non-personal sense.

Well, friends, I'm here to tell you that there was a spirit, all right - but no benign, sterile philosophy. It was an intelligent, extremely subtle and clever being, resolutely dedicated to undermining all the good the Catholic Church has and is. In order to face down this malevolent spirit, we must be equally as dedicated and resolute.

"Barney masses" not quite the thing one has in mind, here, if you get my drift.

There's a remarkable document over at the Vatican. It's remarkable to me because its tone seems almost breathless in its urgency. Its language is from 1907, so it's hard to read, I know; but it's chilling, because its writer clearly foresaw the impending disorders, and wanted so much to head them off.

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?

All emphasis mine.

As we know, this was not just "paranoia." From 1914:

There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way."

All emphasis mine.
Source

Even in our day, John Paul II wrote:

"In theological enquiry, historicism tends to appear for the most part under the guise of “modernism”. Rightly concerned to make theological discourse relevant and understandable to our time, some theologians use only the most recent opinions and philosophical language, ignoring the critical evaluation which ought to be made of them in the light of the tradition. By exchanging relevance for truth, this form of modernism shows itself incapable of satisfying the demands of truth to which theology is called to respond."

Archbishop Chaput is absolutely right when he calls the premise of the article "bafflingly naive," but I am just as baffled at the naiveté of protesting a conclusion which is the natural outgrowth of all we've been commanded to tolerate over the last thirty some-odd years.

What brought all this on was some time spent in Eucharistic Adoration yesterday evening, in the church where I was baptized 36 years ago. As our Holy Father works with such dedication to heal the rifts left by the "smoke of Satan,"* let us pray and be holy and behave in charity towards those who have fallen prey to Modernism - but let us also be wise and strong and unafraid to unmask those errors of thought and belief wherever they appear. Archbishop Chaput has done so much, and he will do more, God willing. But let's not leave it all to him. Let's defend ourselves against anything that leads us away from trusting God, instead of our own weak, fallible, limited selves.



*"Riferendosi alla situazione della Chiesa di oggi, il Santo Padre afferma di avere la sensazione che «da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio». C’è il dubbio, l’incertezza, la problematica, l’inquietudine, l’insoddisfazione, il confronto..."

Long time, no post

My days are very full with a wonderful new job which makes the best use of my skills of any I've ever had. It's the first job I still enjoyed after two weeks, and now that liking has extended into four months. I'm learning a great deal, and also calling upon skills hard won in previous assignments. It is a blessing for me - not least because I'm earning more, even if it is mostly due to overtime. :)

Other than that, all is well with family and friends, thank God. Dearest one has been put a bit off-balance by the new job thing (he lives in another state and is looking forward to the day when we can be together). However, the job is not permanent in my mind, whereas he is permanent in my life and has been so, however deeply buried in memory at times, for 37 years.

Like many others, I'm anticipating the Moto Proprio with the same childlike hope as if it were Christmas: full of wonderful things, many of which will not be seen until they're found under the tree, and unwrapped. May God bless us at this time with maturity and patience and love.

And I never did find what I was looking for about Augustine.

Took at a look at the new blog, CatholiDoxies, and found the post, Coffee with Father George. Scanning thru it, I read:

I started by mentioning how I thought it would be impossible to decide between RCism and Orthodoxy by simply examining the history and theology and coming to a rational decision. I was perhaps expecting pastoral advice here, such as I've received from Fr. Gregory Jensen on this blog, but what I got was a lesson in and hearty endorsement of the Orthodox version of church history. Not a problem at all, as far as I am concerned. I learned quite a bit. Part of this involved a discussion of Augustine as the source of so much legalism and casuistry in the West, as well as the serious issues surrounding Augustine's view of sex.

Huh? I've heard a lot about this, but never read anything that I can remember. Off to Google. After a couple of clicks, found my way to the Jollyblogger and this terrific post where he quotes from a post by Anthony Bradley:

I grew up in a black church and in the black church no subject in all of creation is off limits to speak about from the pulpit, including sexuality in marriage. I've recently heard a black pastor teach about the benefits of men pursuing their wives with love, passion, and service and the good, natural consequence of him loving her well: really good sex.

I have a friend who used to pastor an all black church and now pastors a church of mostly conservative white evangelicals. We recently discussed pastoral challenges and differences between the cultures and he admitted that most of the couples in his church now don't have sex much at all. And I said that was also true for many of my white friends as well (esp. if they married girls that grew up in conservative homes). We were both like, "huh, what's up with that?"

We sat in shock talking about the things we hear from our white brothers like "yeah we only have sex a few times a month (two or three tops)." Or we both heard this one from different men "yeah, we haven't had sex in six months." The number of married guys I know confused and frustrated about the fact that their wives just don't seem to be interested in sex much has blew us both away.

I don't know the answer to that. I suspect there is a cultural aspect to it; some cultures are more openly affectionate, whether verbally or physically, than others, and true WASP culture isn't usually that way.

However, when a man says his wife isn't interested in sex, I can't help but suspect cluelessness lurking somewhere. I'm an inveterate advice-giver, so here's mine. Your mileage may vary, opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management, professional driver on closed track, etc.

* Get the television out of the bedroom. In fact, remove it from every room in the house where meaningful conversation might possibly occur. That might mean you end up with one small TV in the laundry room, to watch while you do the ironing. Do you think I'm joking? Do you want a loving marriage?
* Get lots of sleep. At a minimum, go to bed on time - early - right after the kids. Both of you. Always. One of the sexiest, dearest things a man can do is let a tired woman sleep. If you're raising children, she needs a tremendous amount of sleep. Take the kids to the park and let her nap.
* Keep the non-sexual affection-to-sex ratio at about 80:20. Beware of the "if he's touching me, it must mean he wants sex" pattern. Make it about her. Touch her lovingly, savour her body, gaze into her eyes - cherish her.
* Establish a weekly date night. Let nothing interfere except illness - then reschedule.
* Be helpful. Cheerful. Uncomplaining.
* Don't pooh-pooh marriage counseling. It's OK to use it before you're ready to separate. Really. Cheaper and easier than divorce. I promise. You're probably a less-than-stellar communicator, or you wouldn't be in this predicament. You'll pay someone to coach your golf game, or help you lift weights; why not pay someone to teach you how to romance your wife?
* Don't wait for someone else to strike up an email emotional affair with your spouse; get there first. Keep the "did you get the milk" email and chat to the necessary minimum. You need to have the kind of email exchanges that you would have with someone who listens, and loves, and cares, and is all about you. Be that kind of person for your spouse. Set aside ten minutes on your lunch hour to call or chat or email "how are things going?" Really listen to the reply. If you think you know the fix to the problem, keep your mouth shut unless you're specifically asked for help. Be sympathetic.
* If you ever indulge in sarcasm, hostility, or the kind of remark which is followed by "just kidding," stop doing that immediately. Forever. Just quit cold. If you want great sex, you need a great love. Needling someone is not loving.
* Be on the lookout for things you like, admire, appreciate, adore, etc. about your dear one, and tell them and anyone else who'll listen. Praise your spouse to your children.
* Look your spouse in the eye and let yourself feel love for them. Say "I love you," quietly, then kiss them gently and non-sexually. Let them respond as they will. Repeat as often as you can get away with.
* Figure out what you really need and want. A man may focus on sex as being what he needs, when what he really wants is to be held and focused on and touched with love and cared for generally. If what I just wrote doesn't make sense, go track down someone who can help you figure it out.
* Pray very humbly, for yourself and for your spouse. Prayer always works ... not necessarily to fix the situation - sometimes it can't be fixed - but to change your attitude and perceptions, so that you can discern what to do. Ask for wisdom. Act in love. Trust God. What I wrote above may or may not be true for you. But this is true: God knows and cares and wants what's best for you.

Amy posts about the Motu Proprio, referencing Fr. Z's blog:

Here are the main points in the piece, which I have in Italian below (with my emphases).

* The document is ready and signed.
* It is being translated.
* It will be issued before the Pope’s summer break.
* There is a long explanatory letter from the Pope, of a theological nature to the bishops of the world to help the MP’s reception.
* There will be a press conference with Cardinals Arinze (CDWDS), Castrillon Hoyos (P.Comm. Ecclesia Dei) and Herranz (PC Leg. Texts – retired).
* The delay resulted from strong opposition of bishops conferences.
* A friend of the Pope, Msgr. Nicholas Bux (a well-known author I respect on traditional matters), says it is a matter of days.

In the first comment on Amy's post, Zach Frey said:

It is fascinating from an ecclesiastical politics perspective.

Also, the whole "is it coming?" buzz seems to me one more example that this Pope Benedict fellow is one sharp cookie.

Look at how the "maybe it's coming soon" delays have worked to keep people talking about the return of the TLM.

And if the delay really is due to opposition from the bishop's conferences, that's a beautiful piece of political aikido that His Holiness is practicing.

I'm with Zach. And I've more doubt in the Trinity than I do in the likelihood of the bishops' conferences trying to stop it from happening.

I am looking forward to it with great hope. I see God's hand in this. The method of the original promulgation of the "reforms" after Vatican II was often not God-like, but dismissive, cruel and arrogant. Did Jesus ever tell people about the Way in dismissive, cruel or arrogant language or gestures? And His message was ever so much more revolutionary than a mere church service method! It was a huge wrenching change for some. Yet He did not feel the need to rip them away from it ... He led them.

So does Pope Benedict. He has been leading up to this for years, starting with his beautifully-written works about the Mass. Now, by means of gentle suggestions and encouraging words, he has the world's attention. We are waiting. There is anticipation. Something is going to happen, and it will be both good and, at times, difficult. But he is bringing us something very special, something the family loved for centuries.

That is how a father should act - not ripping something away and slapping the hands of those who innocently (or otherwise) grabbed onto it and claimed it for their own. He leads and encourages and suggests, and their attention is drawn. He does not remove the current object, confident that the intrinsic worth of his gift will be known. And so it shall be, if God wills.

May God bless him, and us, in this and all things.

Beware of these chips

My D.F. told me about Pringles Select Szechuan Barbecue rice crisps, and then actually bought some for me. Now I'm hooked on the stupid things.

It's a scene played out in darkened sonogram rooms all over the country every day:

Greenbaum turned the screen toward the patient. "That’s the little heartbeat," she said, pointing to the area where a tiny organ was clearly pulsing. "And there are the little hands. There's the head. The body."

"Oh, my God, I can really see it!" the patient cried. "Oh, my God! I can see the fingers!"

But, instead of a glow of happiness, this reaction from the mother:

"Okay!" she said, abruptly, gesturing for the screen to be turned away. She began sobbing. There were no tissues in the room, so her husband gave her a paper towel, which she crumpled to her face. The patient spent the rest of the procedure with her hospital gown over her face, so she would not see any more of what was happening.

What happened was something like this:

Then he pinned [the third one] with the needle, and pushed the plunger to release the chemical. The fetus, which had been undulating and waving, went still. It would remain in the womb, while the other fetuses grew and developed.

"Let's check the other two," Evans said, and they moved the transducer to see the other two fetuses, still there, still waving, two hearts beating, unaware of what had just happened to the sibling they would never have.

Source

I truly believe that the women facing this agonizing choice are victims. They are caught up in a web of lies fed them by thoughtless or uninformed media people, well-meaning doctors, and putative ethicists who persuade them of a series of incorrect conclusions. Where you start in your thinking determines the road you will take... up to and including taking actions which cause the very dilemma in the first place, of having more children than the doctors feel is wise to try to carry to anything like "term."

We are slaughtering untold numbers of presidents, theoreticians, waste management specialists, teachers, mothers, fathers, warriors, peacemakers, mathematicians, linguists, cookie-bakers and lawyers every single day. Of course, we are also self-selecting against chromosomally-deficient persons every day, too - including those whose male or female genes render them inappropriate for life, according to their parents. Those ill and damaged people would be a drain on society, no doubt; they would also allow us to have the opportunity to cherish and care for them. And - I realize for some this will be heresy - sometimes, the doctors are wrong. They predict all kinds of miserable outcomes, but their dire predictions come to naught.

Maybe what's needed is a dose of reality. Maybe, instead of sentimentality, we need to look at the real reason for wanting population to decline:

...the farmers of Bobai and nearby towns have been known since the Qing Dynasty for resistance to highhanded rulers. True to their legacy, they rose up against the collection teams, whom they decried as bandits. Backed by their sons, thousands of peasants and townspeople encircled government and birth control centers across surrounding Bobai County, residents here said, stoning riot police brought in to quell the unrest and, in some places, trashing local offices.

"There was trouble in all the villages around here," said a truck driver who, like most of those interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution by local officials.

Even near the main county office building, a witness said, a white banner was unfurled calling for revenge against Su Jianzhong, the Bobai County Communist Party secretary. "Crack down on the head of the bandits, Su Jianzhong," it advertised for all to see, until authorities pulled it down.

The townspeople were all the more unwilling to accept authorities' demands for payment because, as frequently is the case in China, they expressed belief that local officials were generally corrupt and that the money for fines would go to line their pockets rather than into government coffers.

Are we being persuaded to cull ourselves into small, manageable groups so we cannot fight back against people who would control us for their own ends?

As for the mothers who are persuaded to do the heinous act of allowing a perfectly healthy child to be killed, I would not trade with them for a moment. If ever their ability to remain in denial about what they have done breaks down, they will know what they have done, and they will suffer terribly. God is merciful, and loving, and knows to what extent their "choice" was theirs, and how much was in response to cruelly relentless deception and lies. If they ever feel in need of peace about what they did, I pray they will find it in His love. But, unless they are able to prevent the truth from breaking through into their consciousness, they will forever think of that little one, alive and waving.