The Ark and The Dove

Wolf in Mouse's Clothing

Drudge linked to an article covering the Catholic Abbot of Worth's attack on Disney as a source of instilling materialism in children. (Does anyone else think it's ironic that the Abbot of Worth is preaching on value and fetishization?)
His argument is perhaps best summed up in the following:

"Where once morality and meaning were available as part of our free   cultural inheritance, now corporations sell them to us as products."

I think he's really hit on something particularly poignant when he describes how Disney transforms "free cultural inheritance" into a product. All of those famous Disney fairy-tales used to be public domain and folk tales. Today, it's hard to think about Cinderella or Snow White without thinking of Disney's version of them.
The more important point, though, that the Abbot makes is that all of these narratives are ultimately to drive merchandise and profit...and as someone who still squanders quite a bit of his income acquiring sci-fi collectibles, I think I have a pretty good idea of what the Abbot is talking about.
Whereas our narratives used to be a means of creating a cultural community or educating ourselves, our narratives have become secondary to driving cash cow franchises.
I don't think this is a particularly new phenomenon. Homer probably sang to keep himself fed. Shakespeare wrote plays to boost ticket sales. Even Wordsworth has been accused of becoming a sellout once he became poet Laureate.
And, in a way, these authors can be just as bad as Disney--(and I'm thinking of the giftshop at the Folger Shakespeare Library in particular).
Of course, a similar phenomena occurs even within religious circles. We all know young Catholics who approach their religion the way fourteen-year-old girls go batty over Hannah Montana bookbags. These are the members of the Jesus fan club, as I like to call them, and there are people who will try to make a profit off of religious fervor. If we are tolerant of Jesus fan club members it is only because we hope their enthusiasm leads them to something better than Miley Cyrus.
But as the Abbot points out, there is something very disturbing and unhealthy about using narrative to stir up a rabid fanbase rather than to question the state of humanity, using art to literally sell a fantasy of happiness or fulfillment rather than as a means of transmitting Truth in some sort or another.

Quick Analogy for Troubled Times...

Let's say a store is giving away free turkeys for Thanksgiving.
Now let's imagine that someone goes to that store and qualifies for a free turkey with their purchase.
When the cashier tries to give them a free turkey, the customer says: "But I'm a vegetarian. I choose not to eat turkeys. Give me something else."
The cashier explains that the deal is really just for free turkeys, and that there is nothing else to give away.
The customer replies that it isn't fair to give away turkeys to customers who eat turkeys without providing alternative for customers who are vegetarians.
The store manager interjects that it is fair for the store to do, because everyone who qualifies gets a free turkey. It's up to the customer to decide whether they want to eat it. Plus, Thanksgiving is coming up so it's a holiday thing.
The customer explains that's it's not his tradition to eat turkey on Thanksgiving, so it's not right for the store to assume that he does.
The manager tries to explain that most people do eat turkey on Thanksgiving...so maybe the customer could give away the turkey to someone else who wants it...but the customer still complains that his dinner won't be free since the store isn't giving away what he prefers to eat.
Annoyed, the customer starts a petition among vegetarians and complains to the CEO of the store franchise about how he feels unfairly mistreated. Enough people complain that the store starts giving away vegetarian lasagna for Thanksgiving as an alternative to the turkey.

But this isn't enough...by the following year, the vegetarians complain that it makes them feel ostracized that the advertisements in the store feature a picture of a giant turkey and only mention the vegetarian lasagna in the small print. They feel like they are asking for special treatment whenever they request the lasagna, and that they often get funny looks from cashiers or other customers when they make their request. So then they demand that all of the advertisements provide equally large images of turkey and lasagna to help make lasagna seem like an equally preferable choice.

Before long, every Thanksgiving display begins to feature an Italian chef alongside a pilgrim where the Native American used to stand.

Then, some vegetarians start complaining that they are lactose intolerant, and that they can't eat lasagna...and, eventually, stores have to start simply issuing gift cards for $20 off any food in the store with certain purchases during Thanksgiving week.

Both the turkey and the lasagna are replaced with the store's mascot holding out a twenty-dollar bill...which may or may not be used to purchase food for a Thanksgiving dinner...

...not that anyone really remembers what one of those is at this point, anyway.

The Second Collection...

When I was scrambling to find my envelopes today, I found a second one for donations to the CCHD...the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.
After reading about the involvement that CCHD had with ACORN and other lefty groups, I decided to skip out on that donation.
Apparently, I wasn't the only one.

So what's everybody else out there thinking on the CCHD?

Church Officially "Wishy-washy" on Reproduction

I recently underwent a weekend Pre-Cana program where I was quite relieved to find out that the Church's position on reproductive issues was just as "wishy-washy" as I had presumed coming into the class (and, yes, "wishy-washy" were the precise words of the Pre-Cana director).

The director was indeed quite eager to allay any fears that the Church might have had a consistent or even strong view on birth control or obligations to an openness to children. I was delighted to learn that equally authoritative viewpoints existed on both sides of the birth control debate, and that it was ultimately up to my betrothed and I to decide whether children were right for us.

And just imagine the weight that fell from my shoulders when I discovered that no one should worry about "getting struck by a lightning bolt" when following his or her own conscience while in the privacy of my own bedroom.

Slightly less of a relief, but still quite encouraging, was learning that the wedding day is my day...and that I determine what the ritual means for me. My Pre-Cana director humbly acknowledged that my priest really shouldn't have any say in the readings or even structure of the ceremony, since the wedding is about us and not him and not anyone else. I was well-reminded that the priest is only a witness, and that he doesn't really have anything to do with the sacrament. I'm still a little hazy on what a sacrament is...I guess it's not that important since no one thought to tell me over the course of the entire two days...I guess a sacrament means whatever I and my fiance decide it means...it's our day. On the topic of vocabulary, can anyone tell me what Pre-Cana means? It's a kind of funny word, but no one explained that to me either. I guess it's another thing I'm supposed to decide on my own.

I also learned that I shouldn't ask people that are important to me to read at my wedding unless they are at least as good at public speaking as my Pre-Cana director, and that priests are apparently notoriously bad at reading the Bible. Who knew? I also found out that the Bible passage that my fiance and I had decided we would use for our wedding was stupid, so we shouldn't use it. My Pre-Cana director told me so. I was such a fool! How embarrassing it would have been to pick my own readings without my Pre-Cana director's advice!

I've also decided that I better make sure to have a unity candle since my Pre-Cana director spent about twenty minutes explaining its significance to him and the proper way to light one. This unity candle certainly seems more important than NFP (which my Pre-Cana director pointed out is a new name for something called the Rhythm Method) since I learned more about how to light and blow out candles than I learned how determine my future wife's fertility. Apparently, NFP involves taking your wife's temperature before she gets out of bed, but this (as my Pre-Cana director pointed out) is way too hard for anyone but only the most "religious" people to do effectively (and he assured us that he doesn't bother with it). My fiance said she was confused because the workbook said we weren't allowed to have a unity candle, and that it said NFP wasn't the Rhythm Method and seemed to spend a heckuvalot more time discussing it and various ways of doing it. I wouldn't know anything about that though, because we were never asked to look at the workbook even once over the course of two days, so I didn't bother.

We did have fun answering a Marriage SAT test together at Panera after the first day was over. You would think that they would want us to take that test in a way that would prevent us from cheating, you know, in case there were answers that you felt you didn't want your "partner" to see. Oh, well...I guess the test wasn't really that big of a deal.

I know this must be a pretty standard Pre-Cana course, though, because my  Pre-Cana director mentioned how silly the "Five Languages of Love" were. Another couple I know also learned about the "Languages of Love" from their Pre-Cana class, so it must be a standard thing. And just like my friends, my Pre-Cana director couldn't remember all five languages (he hadn't finished reading the book yet).
Apparently, the only really important language of love involves people touching each other's thighs while driving a car, or something like that (that's the example he gave us, at least).

I'm just glad we did Pre-Cana so early...with all of these truths and meaningful rituals that we have to make up on our own, we're barely going to have enough time to make decisions on flowers or favors!
And, boy, am I glad they didn't waste anyone's time talking about any of that Jesus guy (although I think God got mentioned rather abruptly sometime towards the end of day two). There's going to be enough of that Jesus-y stuff going on at the wedding, I'm sure. I mean, really, what could the Church or Jesus Christ really have to say about marriage that could be useful to a recently engaged couple planning to devote their lives to one another in an act of self-sacrificial love?

From a Certain Point of View...

Several news outlets are reporting on Rev. Jay Scott Newman of St. Mary's in Greenville, South Carolina for proclaiming that parishioners who voted for Obama should refrain from Communion until they have made confession. His argument is that voting for a radical pro-abortion candidate when a plausible pro-life candidate is available constitutes an intrinsic evil.

But depending on where you read the story, you get a very different sense of what Father Newman's proclamation means (that's perhaps the most obvious statement I've written all week...).

If you read the Breitbart AP version, you get this:

But bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers—and voters—should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from church teaching on abortion. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese. (emphasis mine)

And this:

 a few Catholic bishops saying Kerry should refrain from receiving Holy Communion because his views were contrary to church teachings. (emphasis mine)

And this:

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she had not heard of other churches taking this position in reaction to Obama's win. (emphasis still mine)

And, finally, this:

"Father Newman is off-base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words." (I own the emphasis)

It all adds up to make it sound as if Father Newman is a wild-eyed extremist priest who has gone rogue, as if he is acting without Church approval like a religious dissenter.

If you read the LifeNews version of the story, though, you get this little nugget:

Stephen             Gajdosik, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, told the             newspaper that Newman's actions are within Catholic Church guidelines.             he said local priests can best determine how to encourage their member's             relationship with God.

The AP piece goes to great lengths to get quotes and opinions from a wide range of people...but never bothered to call up the priest's own diocese to find out whether or not he was in trouble (which, evidently, he is not)? I will concede that the AP version ends with one of the parish's lectors saying he is cool with the situation, and that he can't understand how someone can vote in favor of murdering babies and call themselves Catholics. Still, having the only really positive voice in the article come from a single parish volunteer doesn't do much to show that Father Newman is in his rights...it only shows him appealing to what might be a fringe base by using methods that were previously described as beyond his authority. After considering the statement by the Diocese in the LifeNews piece, it looks like the AP, and apparently Kreuger's group for Catholic Democrats, don't seem to understand how the Church works. Hardly surprising.

Angry Gay Mob Stomps on Cross...Literally

via FoxNews...

Right on the heels of my post about how violent and irrational anti-Christian movements have been getting, a  YouTube video has hit showing rabid gay rights activists tearing a cross out of an elderly counter-protester's hands and stomping on it.

Really makes you want to run up to your local bishop and beg him to let homosexual couples adopt a baby from a Catholic orphanage, huh?

Wouldn't it be a lark if a bunch of gay men were thrown in jail for hate crimes and hate-related assault? Hoised on their own petard...

Putting the B in Obama

I love cheesy B-Movies. That's probably why I'm looking forward to Dreamworks's upcoming Monsters vs. Aliens. But at the risk of sounding xenophobic, there's something about the alien-invader villain of the movie that bears just a little bit too much resemblance to a certain president elect... I think it's the ears...

We Don't Need another Nero...

First there was the Canadian kid who decided to desecrate the Eucharist on YouTube...
Now, there's this Connecticut guy who was arrested for simple battery against parishioners while trying to steal handfuls of the Eucharist...

Then there are the persecutions in India...
And don't forget the friars randomly beaten in their monastery in Turino...

And, of course, Bill Maher's Religulous...
Now followed by an anti-religion advertising campaign in D.C....

I can already hear the lions rattling their cages, and Nero tuning his harp...

How to Succeed in Politics Without Really Trying

Feeling quite like Rip van Winkle, I've woken up to an Obama presidency. I guess we'll see if there really is any change in the air, or if all that hope stuff was just the political fluff it always seemed to be.
What I find perhaps most provocative about this whole thing is that we as a nations just elected a guy with virtually no job experience. Moving from Shakespearean tragedy to Broadway comedy, it reminds me of J. Pierpont Finch's nigh miraculous ascendancy from window-washer to CEO based entirely on word of mouth reputation and somewhat tricksterish, deceitful posturing at his work desk.

Consider that this guy was elected to the U.S. Senate just in 2004, and began his campaign for the presidency in 2006. That's really only two years focused on his job. He's being made president before he's even finished out his first term as senator.

Maybe after I've taught at my current school for two years, I could demand a two year sabbatical...and then be appointed president of the school. Yeah, that's the ticket.

How do we explain this uncanny rise to power? Obama's talent? Fate? Deus ex machina?

I'm going to conjecture that it is owing to America having become a mediacracy. We are a country where power is not in the government or in the people, but in our "news" and "entertainment" industries. We let Hollywood buy this election, and we believed everything we were told about Bush, McCain, and Obama. The people let the media dictate how to imagine and conceive of these guys, and we let the media tell us what was really important (and, in contrast, we let them decide for us what we didn't really need to know). At least, this is the only way I've been able to make logical sense of the election over my bowl of frosted flakes...

The End is Nigh!

It's a little past my bed time, and the news folk are still tabulating. At the moment, Drudge is saying that it's Obama's victory. I guess I'll find out how it really wraps up over breakfast.

If McCain does lose, my next hope is that I'm completely wrong about Obama. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I was completely wrong about something important. And that's kind of the best case scenario with error, right? I'd much rather have been wrong about the opposing party than wrong about the party I voted for.

We'll have to pray for Obama's conversion of heart and that the Supreme Court can keep a runaway legislature/executive tagteam in check.

If I was right about Obama, then at least we can look forward to a new face of change four years from now. In the meantime, I suppose it will be a politics of limiting the amount of damage the Democrats can do.

UPDATE: Of course, the worst thing about all this is how difficult it will be to maintain my social sprezzatura when all of my colleagues celebrate their liberal victory...