You may recall that last year some Mohammedan jihadis attacked the city of Bombay (I refuse to call it “Mumbai,” a name apparently derived from that of a Hindu goddess).  The jihadis murdered various people, including a rabbi.  They murdered him precisely because he was a Jew, which to them probably meant Zionist supporter of Israel (for the sake of my argument, the quite real distinction between “Jew” and “Zionist” is not relevant).  I was reminded of this crime recently when I watched the movie “Slumdog Millionaire.”  The film is set in Bombay and was actually shot at some of the locations the jihadis later assaulted.  *SPOILER ALERT* The movie shows a riot in which Hindus attacked and massacred Mohammedans in the city, an event that actually did happen and which may partially explain why the jihadis attacked that city in particular.  The main character of the movie, a Moslem whose mother was murdered in the Hindu attack, says that Allah  and Rama (a Hindu god) killed his mother.  I write all of this is by way of background to two questions: 

1) If these people (Hindus, Jews, Moslems) died for their non-Christian beliefs, did they die in vain? 

2.)  If they were wrong to choose death in the name of their non-Christian beliefs, by what right would we defend them against violence? 

My conclusion is that the standard cliche “I may disagree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it” is one of the most perverted principles the American ideology of freedom of speech, religion, etc., imposes on us.  Continue reading

Read Catholic texts from the second half of the twentieth century through today, and you will repeatedly encounter two expressions that I don’t think existed before that time, at least not in our Church (correct me if I’m wrong).  I mean “full communion” and “partial communion.”  I object to these terms, or at least to their pairing as two possible degrees of communion.  People are either in full communion, or else they are not in communion.  Communion means “being one with,” not “being kinda one with.”  When it is a question of “at one” or “apart,” “in” or “out,” “yes” or “no,” I don’t see how we can admit of degrees.  “Outside the Church” is “outside the Church,” even if some people or groups may be closer to the door, so to speak.  Continue reading

So the following question occurred to me:  does the beatitude of the blessed surpass natural beatitude to a greater extent than the pain of the damned subverts natural beatitude?  As Catholics, we believe that Heaven is a supernatural grace.  Adam and Eve were created in a state of grace, so no one has ever been in a state of “pure nature.”  However, such a state is notionally distinct from their preternatural and supernatural gifts.  There is a natural beatitude proper to man qua man.  It does not include faith, hope, or charity, but it does include prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.  We can contemplate God using our reason.  Now, it seems to me that we can view Heaven (supernatural beatitude) and Hell (which in actual fact has always involved the loss of a supernatural gift and the wounding of nature***) as two deviations from natural beatitude.  But which takes human experience further away from the limits of natural beatitude, as it were?  Continue reading

So, what does it become after hours? Lutheran, perhaps?

I found this news story via Fr. Z. Of course we’ve been hearing about this St. Mary’s parish in Brisbane, Australia, which from the sound of things is soon going to be excommunicated. I only read the transcript and never watched the news clip. It’s pretty obvious that this is a classic case of liberal media trying to smear religious conservatives and lionize those brave rebels who have the courage to stand up to Big Bad Rome by messing up the liturgy and perverting Catholic doctrine. The story didn’t focus on specifics, but it seems pretty clear that some seriously goofy (not to say sacrilegious) things have been going on at St. Mary’s, such that action is warranted. However, what interested me was the fact that local laymen had apparently been going to the parish deliberately to record abuses and send them to Rome. (Amusingly, the transcript tags such people “Spy 1″ and “Spy 2.”)

Continue reading

So, here’s a little post-Christmas question for all you parents, grandparents or armchair parents (that is, people like myself who have no children but are still interested in questions concerning child rearing.) Should children be taught to believe in Santa Claus?

I realize it’s a little late to be discussing this, but I got interested in it due to a discussion on a Catholic friend’s blog, in which she related how she and her husband told their two-year-old quite frankly that the Santa Claus story (at least, insofar as it involves flying reindeer, elves in the North Pole, sliding down chimneys etc.) is just pretend. After which they proceeded to give their daughter all her Christmas gifts correctly labeled, with no interference from Santa Claus on Christmas morning.

Interested readers can go to her site and read the entire post, but to summarize, she explained that she and her husband “had decided against promoting the commercialized Santa Claus that you believe in for a few years and then find out isn’t real.” On the other hand, they did want to tell their children about St. Nicholas, who, like all the saints, is a real person who can intercede for us. When the problem arose, my friend’s husband, Jeff, dealt with it in the following fashion:

Continue reading

You might be a traditional priest if . . . you have a thurible hanging over the passenger’s seat in your car!

I’ve been feeling rather sad today, thinking about the death of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. It just goes to show you how much you come to take things for granted… it seems terribly strange to think that my next issue of First Things will arrive without the usual installment of punchy, sardonic commentary in The Public Square. Of course, in a way we should really be delighted for him. He was able to keep working almost right up to the time of his death (the blog of First Things has a new article from him dated January, 2009), which I have to suppose is how he would have wanted it. He had enough warning before his death that he was able to receive the Sacraments, and depart this life with all the graces and aids that Mother Church has to offer. Finally, I think we can fairly credit him with a life well lived. Certainly he has been one of the higher-profile Catholic converts of recent decades, and his contribution to the conversation about faith and morality in America has been significant. Not many of the ideas he wrote about were particularly unique or novel (though his book, The Naked Public Square, did make something of a splash in the 1980’s.) But as traditional Catholics can certainly appreciate, novelty is not the primary ingredient of a well-lived life. Fr. Neuhaus was a natural leader and a talented writer, and he had as well that thrill for controversy that enabled him to take the fight to places where defenders of the faith were few.

Continue reading

Wow, has it really been 18 days since I posted last? I’ve been visiting family for the holidays, but even so that’s a long time… as my little brother would say, I’m loafin’. I’m just in time, though, to wish everybody a Merry Christmas before it isn’t anymore. And Happy New Year as well!

Among other enjoyable holiday activities, the Doctor and I took a short trip with my family to Palm Springs in the week after Christmas. (Ah, the joys of Priceline! With its help we were able to stay, for little more than a Super 8 would cost, in a very comfortable resort-type place featuring multiple heated pools, fountains, picturesque avenues of palm trees, and all the things one would wish to see on a vacation to Palm Springs.) On the whole it was a very successful trip. But because it was over a weekend, it did occasion the unfortunate necessity of going to a Saturday vigil Mass at a random Novus parish in Palm Springs. Mostly there were all the usual things — nothing to compete with last year’s Teen Life Mass — but there was one that I at any rate hadn’t seen before: inviting all the children of the parish up around the altar during the consecration. Now, isn’t that cute.

Obviously this is objectionable on multiple levels. It’s irreverent. Crowding lots of people into the sanctuary makes it feel like story hour, not an intensely sacred event. Also, it’s very bad for the children. Inviting them up to the front (and of course the priest gathered them all behind him so that they were facing the people, rather than having them sit at the foot of the altar to adore the Blessed Sacrament) makes them feel like they’re the center of attention. If there is one time in the week when they should not feel like the center of attention, it is at Mass.

Thinking about it, though, it really just seemed kind of sad. How typically Western, to want to show off whatever children you have by bringing them up right in the middle of Mass. It’s characteristic of aging and dying societies to want to worship childhood and youth. Is it really surprising, then, that people would get mixed up about where to keep the children for the holiest part of the Mass?

I’m not quite sure what to make of this appointment. Does anyone know more about Bishop Vigneron? It looks like Bishop Vigneron was not unfriendly to the old rite in Oakland, yet that parish does not yet fully belong to the ICKSP; but that could have been for any number of reasons. At any rate, especially given the positive movement towards the Tridentine Mass around the world and in the U.S. in particular, I’d bet that it won’t be too much longer before Detroit sees a priest of the F.S.S.P. or the ICKSP.