The Ark and The Dove

What theory is the best solution for the Synoptic Problem?

Vote away.

via Amy

And for the record, I've never been a fan of Q. 

Pope Pius XII, Venerable-to-be

Zenit reports that the Congregation for Saints' Causes unanimously voted to recommend that Pope Benedict declare Pope Pius XII venerable.

[I]n his first Christmas message, John XXIII said his predecessor was worthy of canonization and called him "Supreme doctor, light of holy mother Church, lover of the divine law."

[W]hen news of Pius XII's death on Oct. 9, 1958, was flashed around the world, an editorial, "Fighter for Peace," in the Los Angeles Examiner expressed the sentiments of Catholics and non-Catholics, and declared that this "Fighter for Peace" was the "Pope of Peace." Of those mourning the Pope's death, Jews -- who credited him with being one of their greatest benefactors -- were in the forefront.

Details

When you are really intimately familiar with a story, you start to learn the little details of it.  It just happens.  Just like when you are really close to a person, you don't necessarily sit down and interrogate him about little details about his life, but you find them out - like his birthday, and his mother's maiden name, and so forth; and you don't consider these burdensome details, but interesting because you care about the person.

Some of you have to have watched Star Wars as many times as I have.  There was a time when I could recite most of the lines along with the movies.  Maybe the first time you watched it you focused on the broader features and the identities of the main characters, but maybe after the third time you watched the movies you would start remembering details like place names and all the minor characters, and after the seventh time you would take some pleasure in being able to answer when someone asks you what Boba Fett's father's name is, or what "TIE" stands for, or about the Wilhelm Scream, or what other actors were considered for the role of Han Solo.  You might even exult a bit in knowing neat things like that.

It's kind of embarrassing how few of these sorts of details I know about the Bible.  Not that someday your salvation is going to depend on knowing the name that Pharaoh gave to Joseph, or how old Isaac was when he died, or which number in the series of the woes of Revelation the locusts are, but wouldn't it be neat (not to mention fitting and right) to have the same or better quality of detail-knowledge about the Scriptures as about books and movies I like because they entertain me?

Re-Joyce

I heard a literature professor say that Joyce's Ulysses can't really be read, it can only be re-read.  Does that mean I'm going to have to read it again?

Memorials

I really like football, but that doesn't mean that on Super Bowl Sunday I want the priest to organize a game of two-hand touch in the sanctuary at Mass, or to play the Fox Football theme as a communion piece.  I'm really big on science, but that doesn't mean that I want physics demonstrations in between the Bible readings.  And I really love my country.  I'm an Eagle Scout; I stand up when the American Flag passes by; I sing the National Anthem at every sporting event.  But that doesn't mean I want people to try to turn the Mass on Memorial Day into some sort of civic patriotic ceremony. 

That may sound like a weird thing, but weird was what it felt like at the Mass I happened to attend on Memorial Day.  Must worldly concerns pursue me even into heaven?  At this Mass, instead of hymns to God, there were patriotic songs that had have religious references in them.  The music was accompanied by trumpet and organ, and there was the Gloria and Creed as though it were a Holy Day of the Church.  The homily was up until the last minute where God came into it like a speech you might hear a local politician give at a civic Memorial Day ceremony, all about American politics and history.  Before the dismissal, a lector declaimed the Gettysburg Address from the lectern to an instrumental background of patriotic music.

Now, I would be happy to go to a Memorial Day thing where we had patriotic speeches and sang patriotic songs (incidentally, I don't think they had one in that town that day).  But I would not like to merge such a thing with the holy Mass.

Assault on Reason

Not to sound viciously political, but does anyone else think that The Assault on Reason has got to be worst title ever for a book?

Scenario One:
"What's your book called?"
"The Assault on Reason."
"I know it is, but what's the title?"

Scenario Two:
"Hmmm...whatever should we call Gore's new book?"
"What? You mean the one that's the assault on reason?"
"That's it! You've got it! The Assault on Reason!"

Scenario Three:
"I'm looking for The Assault on Reason? I think it's in the political section."
"I'm sorry, but you are going to have to be more specific than that..."

Perhaps he would have been wiser to entitle his book: The Defense of Reason, or In Praise of Reason, or The Age of Irrationality.

Re: Dismas

Good, so I don't have to worry that I should take down the link to protect anyone's privacy (and I would, because I hope others would do that for me).  St. Dismas is a good patron to have - not only a good repenter, but what a way to be canonized!

The Ideal Ideology

Upon reflection, it occurs to me that the problem with a leftist ideology is not the ends to which it aspires, but the means by which it tries to reach them. Likewise, the problem with a rightist ideology is less the means than it is their logical end in the real world. I realize that these are vague and sticky terms. For the moment, I mean liberal/left in the sense of large government programs and "conservative" in the more libertarian sense of individual initiatives apart from government interference.

For example, no one would speak against the goodness of "liberal" ends: equality, medicine for the poor, a woman's personal value and freedom. The problem is how our liberal politicians attempt to achieve it: affirmative action, socialized healthcare, and abortion rights.

On the other hand, you'd be hardpressed to find someone who would say that there is anything inherently wrong with a government that protects the possessions and rights of its people, or with people serving higher authorities. The problem is that the government can easily be corrupted, and the ends to which it claims to strive can be masks for ulterior motives. While the people's obedience (the means) might be a good thing, the abuse of that obedience for self-advancement (the ends) is very bad. Also, individualism as its own end leads to a nightmare world of selfishness.

Individualism only succeeds if it is tempered with a notion that other individuals are just as valuable, and that it is worth sacrficing oneself selflessly and voluntarily for the sake of another.

Thus, the ideal ideology would then seem to be one that employs the ends of a liberal ideology with the means of a conservative ideology. This is the ideology that breeds charity. You can only make a gift of things you already own.

It would also stand to reason that the worst ideology would be one that employs leftist means to a right-wing end. This is the road to tyranny; having things taken away from you in the service of another because the other has the authority to claim it. Those who feed off the state do so for their own individual benefit.

This is perhaps why the Church is such an enduring and gratifying institution, whereas most other institutions are short-lived or miserable.

The Church, perhaps more than any other body, shows how placing tremendous value on the individual ultimately leads to social wellness. Morality creates true liberty, which itself is necessary ingredient for individual virtue, which in turn promotes the prosperity of the whole. Even the Church's "government" in the form of the hierarchy exists solely to serve individual members of the Church. Peter was given keys, not a sword. Keys are what a steward carries, and a steward is ultimately the head servant (we've read of the disasters that have occurred when Peter has forgotten this role, and we've seen what Jesus said to Peter when he wielded a sword). The pope's ends are "liberal," but his means are "conservative." He serves the people by showing them the way to a utopian society through individual moral choices, not based on compulsory government mandate and interference.

Pardon me for being cynical

But I'm not entirely sure how successful they're going to be in teaching "happiness lessons" to ennui-overloaded middle schoolers.  Not that I think it can't be done; just that I'm not terribly hopeful they'll have the sound philosophy and guts to do it properly.  To give happiness lessons, you first have to know what happiness is, and our culture has such a degraded, vitiated, weak notion of happiness (compared to, say, the Church's notion of beatitude, or Aristotle's eudaimonia) that even the word "happiness" sounds trivial, banal, inane, and pathetic, a fact which the editor was able to exploit in the headline to give the article more comedy value.

Think about it.  They're probably not going to do it through Christianity or even any semblance of religion at all.  That means you're limited to purely natural means.  That means, basically, teaching them a mechanism to cope with the unavoidable proposition "life sucks, then you die."  There have been many such systems devised, or rather many iterations of a few basic ideas (I consider that the really meaningful way to distinguish between philosophies is by what they consider to be the highest good).  (P.S. I was thinking, but forgot to imply, that they theoretically could also just attempt to condition them to maintain an "unexamined life" in a way convenient to their superiors.) Which one do you think they'll pick? 

Good going, modern society

Yet another little thing that confirms my suspicion that the effect of radical feminism is to knock down everything that is distinctly feminine as well as what's distinctly masculine.  According to Ananova's odd news dept., British men are "too PC" to give compliments to women because they're afraid they might offend them.  And at least according to the survey the article cites, their fears are justified, because a supermajority of women will feel uncomfortable and about the same amount will suspect ulterior motives.  A relationship expert points out how unhealthy this is. 

Now if the compliment is some overtly sexual come-on like "Hey baby, are those space pants you're wearing? etc." I totally understand why women would feel this way.  But if it's something innocent like how pretty she looks, or about her hair or eyes or smile or outfit or something, stop being offended at being treated like a woman.  That's what I'm talking about, how feminism strangles the courtesy of men.  Then all you're left with is the jerks and the silent ones, because (paradoxically) the latter are the ones who out of courtesy will defer to a lady's wishes.

By the same token, men, if the only or chief word in your repertoire with which to compliment a young lady is "hot," maybe you need to expand your vocabulary a little.  I know that's the word commonly used in our society to express a positive opinion of a girl's looks, but if that's all girls ever hear you ever say, think about how it might make them wonder if you only ever think about a young lady in terms of her sex potential.  Could you say that she's very pretty, or beautiful (if she is), or cute, or some other positive description?

I'm not indicting everyone here, or everyone I know, but maybe if you took umbrage at that, maybe you are one of them.  Ok, (mild) rant over. (P.S. The link is fixed.  And no, most of the girls I know aren't like that.  But it's in the culture enough that it's worth mentioning.)