Catholic Sensibility

A few pages at JPL worth checking out from Cassini's double flyby last weekend. Your choice of movies made from Hyperion images. The odd, irregular, tumbling moon looks like a sponge here, but that's just the illusion created by dark crater floors. Tethys looks like it partially melted then refroze. Check out this false color shot from less than 12,000 miles away. The same region as the human eye would see it. The photo captions explain briefly why the various false color shots are of interest to scientists. When I was a kid, I could name all of Saturn's nine--then ten moons, but the new list has outgrown my memory. Thirty-four moons have now been named, and more which have been discovered by Cassini await formal nomenclature. Here they are: Albiorix, Atlas, Calypso, Dione , Enceladus, Epimetheus, Erriapo, Helene, Hyperion, Iapetus, Ijiraq, Janus, Kiviuq, Methone, Mimas, Mundilfari, Narvi, Paaliaq, Pallene, Pan, Pandora, Phoebe, Polydeuces, Prometheus, Rhea, Siarnaq, Skadi, Suttung, Tarvos, Telesto, Tethys, Thrym, Titan and Ymir. Favorites, anyone?

Bernard gave me food for thought on the last SF thread. He's right and I'm wrong there's absolutely no good SF on tv. Battlestar Galactica is better than average, though there's something about it that doesn't quite grab me. Maybe I have to be a regular viewer. I confess I've only seen about seven episodes. Good sf/fantasy tv-movie treatments I've seen recently on that network or elsewhere: A Wrinkle in Time, The Lathe of Heaven, Dune, and Gormenghast. Most of what is programmed for film on SciFi is ubertrashy. I would love to see an established sf writer or two or three be recruited to write two to four shows. I think Kevin Anderson would do a good job; his books read like movies. And his Seven Suns Saga, though not top-shelf literature, is excellently plotted and characterized. (I recommend it.) I avoid spin-off lit on moral principles, so I don't know how his Star Wars and Dune stuff is. Connie Willis is another sharp writer who could write for film. I loved her first novel Lincoln's Dreams (reviewed here). Certainly her award-winning Doomsday Book would be a worthy film effort. I think the SciFi channel should eschew the lame title and go with what fans like: SF. (No serious SF person refers to it as SciFi. Not one.) I think they could produce some good science shows. I remember a good number of interesting things (like this) on TLC or the Discovery Channel before they went true crime. I think they could take a stab at film versions of famous SF novels more regularly than the fourth sequel to Anaconda.

Picking up on a comment below about fruit cultivation ... Just returned from the annual diocesan retreat day given for clergy and lay staff and co-sponsored by the Center and the Priestly Life & Ministry Office. A good speaker and good reflection time on the Eucharist, especially this passage coming up Sunday: Brothers and sisters: Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you. About four items caught my eye and ear in this passage, but the focus, "think about these things," namely, the excellent and the praiseworthy brought me back to last night's meeting and the general tenor of strife around St Blog's. The extremes of bitterness, satire, holding grudges, rejoicing in others' misfortune, and other aspects are hardly associated with truth, honor, justice, purity, loveliness, or grace. And I think many of us, in our heart of hearts, realize this. We have been unable to hear and see directly in the apostle Paul what he did nineteen-plus centuries ago. But I think there's enough meat in his letters to discern that the best example of living the faith comes not from the ordinary layers of life, but from the extraordinary level of the saints. And certainly an adult level or saintly level of faith will require substantial nourishment, no doubt something more varied than one-crop agriculture. Or as I confided in a friend today, maybe it's time the laity of this diocese realized we don't need a bishop or a diocesan office any more to cultivate faith and theology in the next generation. We have the Scriptural and saintly resources to spread the authentic Christ-centered Good News and we require neither a particular ideology nor a budget to accomplish what we are called to do. Bishop Finn's praise of New Wine and its graduates is practically an endorsement for anything we can effect outside of a budgetary domain. And that's a good thing, don't you think?

The diocese held its first of three information gathering sessions for the adult formation task force. It felt like St Blog's Live, though with a 60-40 prog tilt rather than 25-75. Some people said some articulate things. Some people said some silly or irrelevant things. Both sides of the Great Divide said things for each camp. The articulate/irrelevant camps, that is. Not much was said in terms of bridging any of these camps or expressing true catholicism, as opposed to one's own brand of orthodoxy. I left at half-time to go grocery shopping. But I did turn in my four page survey with three pages of Apostolicam Actuositatem tacked on the end. New Wine was compared to an orange grove. The bishop wants apples now. He's the king because Jesus established a hierarchy, so there you have it. Not one of the better moments of the night, and that came from a diocesan official I respect. Other people complained about various things (keep in mind this is adult formation information gathering): not being able to find the tabernacle, no consultation, too many divorces, I-was-starting-New-Wine-and-now-I-have-nothing-to-do, etc.. Today is the retreat day for the parish staffs of the diocese. I might suggest what I was too bothered to suggest last night: The bishop is in charge. If we disagree and he insists, we have no power to do anything about it. (My 12 Steps kick in here.) If New Wine has indeed prepared the laity of the diocese so well, why don't we cultivate an orange grove after picking apples? Do lay people need a diocese to take initiative for them? Personally speaking, I would be pleased and honored to teach and mentor the next wave of lay ministers. I received a good education and I'm more than willing to "give back." More later.

Christian husbands and wives are cooperators in grace and witnesses of faith for each other, their children, and all others in their household. They are the first to communicate the faith to their children and to educate them by word and example for the Christian and apostolic life. They prudently help them in the choice of their vocation and carefully promote any sacred vocation which they may discern in them.

That said, I guess there are other vocations, but I think we can give AA a pass on the incongruity of heaping praise on marriage and family only to suggest it is a spawning ground for other (higher, holier?) callings.

A list for spouses follows:

- to manifest and prove by their own way of life the indissolubility and sacredness of the marriage bond

- strenuously to affirm the right and duty of parents and guardians to educate children in a Christian manner

- to defend the dignity and lawful autonomy of the family.

Government has a list, too, for the needs of families:

- housing

- the education of children

- working conditions

- social security

- taxes

- safeguarding the right of migrants to live together as a family

Another mention of liturgy:

This mission-to be the first and vital cell of society-the family has received from God. It will fulfill this mission if it appears as the domestic sanctuary of the Church by reason of the mutual affection of its members and the prayer that they offer to God in common, if the whole family makes itself a part of the liturgical worship of the Church, and if it provides active hospitality and promotes justice and other good works for the service of all (those) in need.

A substantial list of activities within the family apostolate:

- the adoption of abandoned infants (what about older kids, too?)

- hospitality to strangers (refugees, immigrants, etc. and their families)

- assistance in the operation of schools (not just Catholic schools, but public schools, too)

- helpful advice and material assistance for adolescents (material assistance ...?)

- help to engaged couples in preparing themselves better for marriage (not for priests only)

- catechetical work

- support of married couples and families involved in material and moral crises

- help for the aged not only by providing them with the necessities of life but also by obtaining for them a fair share of the benefits of an expanding economy.

Justice advocacy, too. Nice.

At all times and places but particularly in areas where the first seeds of the Gospel are being sown, or where the Church is just beginning, or is involved in some serious difficulty, Christian families can give effective testimony to Christ before the world by remaining faithful to the Gospel and by providing a model of Christian marriage through their whole way of life. To facilitate the attainment of the goals of their apostolate, it can be useful for families to be brought together into groups.

Last bite sounds like a village to me.

What do you think?

The bishops are feeling the heat. NPR gives us a story on Levada from his Portland days that dogs him still. Apparently, diocesan lawyers tried to blame the mother of a seminarian's love child because she didn't practice contraception. It is whispered that Cardinal Rigali got a dressing down from his clergy last night, including a moral theologian. I googled this site, which naturally focuses on other people, mostly laity, who have lost their sense of sin. It is society's "sin of the century," and that may well be true. Recently on the home front, our diocesan vicar general mentioned the "loss of a sense of sin." He strikes me as wise enough to see it all around, not just manifesting itself as logs in lay eyes. Rock reported: "You seem to stress intention. You try to claim there was never a wrong intention," the priest reportedly told Rigali. But from a Catholic moral perspective, he said, the "horrific" outcomes of Krol's and Bevilacqua's cover-up vastly outweigh their efforts to protect the archdiocese from scandal. "The people are not interested in intentions," he told the cardinal. Some clergy seem to have the notion that a sense of sin is as utilitarian as a bottle opener. It's there, fully formed and ready to go; just fetch it from the kitchen drawer. "You open your beer with your teeth? No wonder your dentist loves you. Why don't you get your opener from the kitchen?" Like most people actually ever had a sense of sin developed to the point where they can just open the drawer, get it out, and use it ... like a tool. AA has it right, in the core of the Twelve Steps, the best non-Catholic plan for Reconciliation ever devised: 4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. 10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. If the bishops have misplaced their drawer, these steps to recover it might be well advised. One makes a fearless moral inventory with the expectation of finding something. That's why it's called a search. Rigali's priests are right. The hierarchy should make a moral inventory with the intent that something will be found. And once it's found, it should be confessed. And then there are still five more steps to go, based on the assumption that people find it somewhat harder to change than they find opening a bottle: get ready to be changed, ask to change, make a list, make amends, then repeat steps four through nine as necessary. As a parent, I worry about teaching my daughter an appropriate sense of sin. When I do something wrong to a family member, I apologize. I have apologized to my daughter for losing my temper, for yelling, for forgetting something important to her ... things she can understand. When she has done something wrong, I believe the sincerity of her words, "I'm sorry, Dad," because I think (and hope) she appreciates the sincerity I attempt when I have wronged her. I don't have any better way of getting the message across; I hope it's enough. I don't enjoy seeing the bishops squirm. But they have to set an example above reproach. We need to see an example from them that is difficult and demanding. An example that most people might be unable, or at least leery of following. The inventory they conduct should run on the assumption that there is something to find in church bureaucracy that demands reform, repentance, and renewal. And if there is a sense of sin to be recovered, somebody has to do more than tell us what to do. The role of the bishop is to show us how to do it.

I love third graders. I especially love my daughter. Innocent still, yet able to speak wisdom. The other week, Brittany shared this gem:

Chapter 3 of AA (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, Vatican II) leads off with this: The laity carry out their manifold apostolate both in the Church and in the world. In both areas there are various opportunities for apostolic activity. We wish to list here the more important fields of action, namely, church communities, the family, youth, the social milieu, and national and international levels. Since in our times women have an ever more active share in the whole life of society, it is very important that they participate more widely also in the various fields of the Church's apostolate. It's the lay apostolate, not a lay version of a priestly apostolate. This list isn't meant to be exhaustive or exclusive. And the nod to the more active role of women in larger society. AA 10 notes: As sharers in the role of Christ as priest, prophet, and king, the laity have their work cut out for them in the life and activity of the Church. And the Vatican bishops acknowledge also that it forms an effective complement to the work of pastors, citing the New Testament: Their activity is so necessary within the Church communities that without it the apostolate of the pastors is often unable to achieve its full effectiveness. In the manner of the men and women who helped Paul in spreading the Gospel (cf. Acts 18:18, 26; Rom. 16:3) the laity with the right apostolic attitude supply what is lacking to their brethren and refresh the spirit of pastors and of the rest of the faithful (cf. 1 Cor. 16:17-18). The liturgist in me smiles at yet another mention of active participation, and that liturgical prayer provides a necessary nourishment and foundation for the life of the parish: Strengthened by active participation in the liturgical life of their community, they are eager to do their share of the apostolic works of that community. AA 10 continues, citing the special insights of lay evangelization (They bring to the Church people who perhaps are far removed from it), "cooperation" in catechesis, and in both pastoral and material administration (offer(ing) their special skills to make the care of souls and the administration of the temporalities of the Church more efficient and effective). The parish is upheld as the community par excellence for Catholics, especially in the way it "brings together the many human differences within its boundaries and merges them into the universality of the Church." The parish provides the opportunity to work with the clergy, but the parish is also the place in which people bring "their own and the world's problems as well as questions concerning human salvation, all of which they should examine and resolve by deliberating in common." Is the parish wise to tread into endeavors such as 12-Step groups, fitness classes, and discussion groups? It would seem so. AA's vision of parish life would not necessarily be to limit adult ed to a speaker on stem cell research or just war (for example) but to invite an active discussion on such issues, particularly the prudential ones, which might still ask of us that personal examination and resolution--at least on the parish level. As far as possible the laity ought to provide helpful collaboration for every apostolic and missionary undertaking sponsored by their local parish.

"Every" undertaking? Every one? Hmm.

AA 10 also suggests for lay people - an "ever-increasing appreciation" of the diocese - cooperation in cities and rural areas, even across parish or diocesan boundaries - involvement in national-level and international apostolates This is constantly becoming all the more necessary because the daily increase in mobility of populations, reciprocal relationships, and means of communication no longer allow any sector of society to remain closed in upon itself. Thus they should be concerned about the needs of the people of God dispersed throughout the world. They should especially make missionary activity their own by giving material or even personal assistance. It is a duty and honor for Christians to return to God a part of the good things that they receive from Him. I worry that many parishes have lost (or have never gained) an appreciation for this wide-reaching sense of ministry or apostolate. Even today, parishes have remained very parochial, thanks to the emphasis on school identification, sports competitions, or even a competitiveness amongst neighboring pastors. Thoughts?

Frequent guest Brigid asked about Dune when her turn at the SF author quiz turned up that tome's creator, Frank Herbert. On occasion I run across someone nearly or totally uninitiated to the world of science fiction and they ask about one book or another. Every SF fan will tell you something different, tilted by her or his own tastes, but if I were to put you on the track of science fiction, here's where your spanking new anti-grav hoverwheels might begin ... (Note: I'm not going to bother linking these authors or books; you have google or amazon and can probably find them yourself.) Asimov is a utilitarian writer. If you can imagine big ideas without tons of description, you might like him. His robot mysteries, especially Caves of Steel, are good. Every SF fan has read the original Foundation trilogy, the first two books of which were published as shorter works before being combined by his publisher. Robert Heinlein can be testy if you're not a libertarian. My favorite of his books is The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, which won the 1966 Hugo for best SF novel. Arthur C. Clarke rounds out the "Big Three," and an unofficial web site pins this accurate description on him: "At the heart of every Arthur C. Clarke novel lies a small puzzle with large ramifications. He is an author who takes an idea and drops it into a quiet pool of thought. There's a splash - that's the intriguing nature of Clarke's scientific genius. Then the ripples spread out, washing up on character, society, soaking the whole book in wonder. He's a science fiction writer whose imaginings reverberate outside the realm of fiction." That said, I can't recommend any of his novels above the others, though his collaboration with Kubrick on 2001: A Space Odyssey is worthy. His short story "The Star" might be of interest to St Blog's readers. After the "Big Three" you have the killer B's: Benford, Brin and Bear. Three science guys with Big Ideas who just happen to be good writers, too. Brin is my favorite of the three for characterization and an optimistic bent. Brin wrote a good mystery Sundiver, a great fantasy, The Practice Effect, but my favorite is his award-winning Startide Rising. My favorite Bear novel is Moving Mars. These are sf/fantasy novels somewhat off the beaten path (non-feature film material) I've read that were significant (or that I just remember) and that unlike most sf tv, are not weird: Doomsday Book by Connie Willis Bring the Jubilee by Ward Moore Lost Horizon by James Hilton (ok, well, the only good film version is over sixty years old) The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson (and his Mars trilogy is great, too) Alas Babylon by Pat Frank The Forever War by Joe Haldeman A Case of Conscience by James Blish A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes The Chrysalids by John Wyndham I will tell you that this year, there is no good sf on television. None whatsoever. If you must watch tv, watch non-sf instead.

Rock posted the latest ICEL incarnation of the Creed. Compare to the authentic Latin version on the left. Maybe you'd like to take your own crack at translating it. Who knows? ICEL may give you a call. I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father: through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, (At the following words, up to and including and became man, all bow.) and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. Crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. And rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life: who proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. And in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. Compare it to draft 1, what went to the English-speaking bishops last year, as leaked by an Australian news agency: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before time began. God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father: through whom all things were made. Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, (At the following words, up to and including and became man, all bow.) and by the Holy Spirit became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life: who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. I can imagine the nitpicking that went on about what to do with and's, who thought "consubstantialem" is or isn't a direct translation of "consubstantial," and that the feminists would be heartened to find the Holy Spirit is no longer "He," but we're still going to translate "homo" just the same as we'd do with "vir." Just for spite, eh? Whatever final English version that emerges has some obstacles. Permit your favorite parish liturgist to make some suggestions for implementation: This would be a good time to get people to sing it. If they have to learn music, they'll have to learn the new words along with it, and I suspect that for singing congregations, the alterations will go down easier if there's music to go with it. Maybe the USCCB could commission about a half-dozen good composers to give us public domain music any parish could copy and use. The alternative is that people will trip up over the seemingly innocent placement of articles, not necessarily words like "consubstantial." Some people want the bow at the incarnation enforced? I'd be happy if the laity don't adopt another favorite liturgical gesture ... arms crossed in front of them and unmoving lips.

Frequent visitor Fred asked me what I thought of Anthony Esolen's piece in Crisis. Fred wrote, "I liked the beginning, but felt that the conclusion was a bit overstated." That was exactly my take on it. Esolen does well for the first third to half of the artcile--how much time it takes him to set up his point. Then he blunders into a diatribe about everything he doesn't like in the Church, apparently with a seeing eye into the hearts of people who wear pink or who golf on Sundays. The good stuff first: The Church is a gift from God. Grace is the source of human success, not our own efforts. Pride is a stumbling block for us and always has been. People try to control God rather than be guided by Him. The Old Testament is rife with examples of the Israelites "not getting it." Getting around to liturgy, Esolen writes: The worship of God is not, as politics justly is, a human work. To understand that the Church and its liturgy are given to us, says Benedict, is to carve out a legitimate and relatively free arena for politics, while providing for it what it cannot provide for itself, namely, a justification of its fundamental assumptions. But to consider Church and liturgy as man's work is to corrupt one's worship, subtly making it into a way to gain whatever earthly goods one may desire. I think it's important not to slip away from the notion that liturgy is wholly a descent of things from above. Esolen is aware that liturgy involves "... gifts we offer (God) in sacrifice" (Eucharistic Prayer I) and that the same prayer involves our petition to join the community of saints with the acknowledgement that though we don't deserve it, we ask for it all the same. Liturgical chutzpah. Esolen is right to say there's always the bootstrap trap: I can do it myself! But Esolen misconstrues the better of his opponents arguments, stating that the "incessant discussion" for women's ordination is based on human polity, rather than an honest willingness to discern God's will. Esolen tales the front end of his article to lay down his point: The clergy and laymen who cause the most harm in our Church right now are not those few who think of the Church as a powerful job. They are those, and their name is Legion, who think of the Church as a delightful and self-fulfilling hobby. And then he loses it, drawing extreme caricatures of Catholics: "Sashaying choristers with frilly robes, ... (s)oloists, under a tingly spotlight, crooning into the microphone and writhing for emphasis," and describing a scene I've never come across in thirty-five years: a "crooner often displays other parts of her body in more urgent need of cover." Esolen's Church is populated by "(r)ows and rows of the finest virtuosos, of lectors and lectresses, the Everyday Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, the Liturgical Commissars, Commissars of Religious Education, the Financial Commissar, the Grand Imperial Mystic Wizards of the Parish Council, and, thank God for one person who actually does work that is humble, unnoticed, and quite necessary, the janitor." Esolen goes on to praise those "who do their work unobtrusively and humbly, aware that they are not worthy of doing it, and praying that they will perform it in such a way as to help lead some soul to God, or at least not get in that soul's way." The writer ruins an otherwise good point about the meaning of lay ministry and church involvement with people who seem to bother him to the point that he inflates their sins to the size of logs in his mind. There's no point in denying that human beings get in the way of God in Church. They take matters into their own hands. Sometimes, it's out of ignorance, and other times it involves a lack of trust in God ("Somebody'd better do something, and it looks like it's gotta be me.") and occasionally it involves a degree of malice. We've known and seen all of those folks. When the fathers of Vatican II called for a renewed appreciation for the laity and their more energetic participation in the Church, they ... meant, as our Holy Father Benedict has insisted, that the laity should assume the responsibilities of adults in the Faith: fully committed to it and ready to evangelize, to bring Christ where it is inconvenient or difficult for the priest to go—to the oil derrick, down the mine, into the hospital ward, into the chambers of a party meeting, at a city council table. That would be to recognize the charism of the laity, to honor the distinction between church and the secular order, and to affirm that the secular order's health can be restored only in Christ. Good try, but no. The italicized phrase would be a problem. The lay apostolate is not dependent on "where it is inconvenient or difficult for the priest to go," but on the call of baptism. Priests can theoretically serve in public office, run governments and businesses, etc., but it is not appropriate for them to do so. They can also proclaim non-gospel Scriptures, serve as godparents, or bring up the gifts at Sunday Mass, but it is not their role in the Church. Esolen finally lost my attention with "The Church hobbyist contracts the sphere of the Church to the space within the building's walls, and then makes that space as amenable to himself as he can," followed by a long narrative on golfing. Some hobbyists have gone to seminary and involved themselves in their hobby to the exclusion of work. And many lay people, too. The lay apostolate, whether it is a full-time life's endeavor, or a "hobby" of sorts, demands certain qualities: - Sacrifice - Emotional maturity - An ability to let go - A deep and fulfilling spiritual life - Openmindedness, especially with people - A thirst for knowledge - The ability and willingness to mentor others to take over And lots of other items, most prominently, and attitude of faith, hope, and love in wading through these and other unlisted qualities. The scantily-dressed crooner of Esolen's imagination is a caricature of all that is wrong with the Church, starting not with the top of the parish heap, but the worst of the world's bishops and moving down from there. But behind every caricature, Esolen's, yours, mine, is a human person who has been called by God, and who is in need of steering to keep to the path of grace. It might well be that Esolen's people really do exist, even though I've never met any quite as flashy as he describes, and no parish I can recall has ever been filled with "commissars." But like it or not, the incarnated Body of Christ is composed of very human, very flawed, very sinful parts. It is the mark of an unorthodox God that He sees fit to make use of commissars and crooners to get into our thick heads a message that lawgivers, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and his own Son have tried for ages to get across.

So I'm this guy, by quiz. I even like his writing, though he is a bit of a pessimist.

AA takes a broad approach to the virtue of charity, speaking, I think, along the broad Jewish notion of loving-kindness (hesed). The expression of charity is God's will, we read:

While every exercise of the apostolate should be motivated by charity, some works by their very nature can become specially vivid expressions of this charity. Christ the Lord wanted these works to be signs of His messianic mission.

Assuming human nature, (Christ) bound the whole human race to Himself as a family through a certain supernatural solidarity and established charity as the mark of His disciples, saying, "By this will all ... know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).

Highest among the Church's apostolic priorities?

"... pity for the needy and the sick and works of charity and mutual aid intended to relieve human needs of every kind ..."

AA8 continues, teaching that technological advances in travel and communication, by bringing the world's poor close to us and we to them, puts them within the necessary orbit of our concern. In other words, now that we see them on the evening news (if not the infomercials), we are obliged to assist.

Wherever there are people in need of food and drink, clothing, housing, medicine, employment, education; wherever (people) lack the facilities necessary for living a truly human life or are afflicted with serious distress or illness or suffer exile or imprisonment, there Christian charity should seek them out and find them, console them with great solicitude, and help them with appropriate relief. This obligation is imposed above all upon every prosperous nation and person.

Opportunists need not apply: In order that the exercise of charity on this scale may be unexceptionable in appearance as well as in fact, it is altogether necessary that one should consider in one's neighbor the image of God in which he has been created, and also Christ the Lord to Whom is really offered whatever is given to a needy person. It is imperative also that the freedom and dignity of the person being helped be respected with the utmost consideration, that the purity of one's charitable intentions be not stained by seeking one's own advantage or by striving for domination, and especially that the demands of justice be satisfied lest the giving of what is due in justice be represented as the offering of a charitable gift. Not only the effects but also the causes of these ills must be removed and the help be given in such a way that the recipients may gradually be freed from dependence on outsiders and become self-sufficient.

A few comments here: 1. The expression of care should be "unexceptional." 2. The importance of upholding human dignity. 3. The striving for purity of motives. 4. This apostolate is more properly considered an expression of justice, not generosity. 5. The "teach to fish" approach is superior to the "feed a fish" approach.

Community building is clearly a vital portion of the lay apostolate, which flies in the face of those who might suggest that a simple expression of charity alone is all that is required. This is why I find it hard to fault political organizers in the third world, as many Catholics (and others) do. While I have no particular love for marxism, especially expressions of its philosophy that demean the human person, it is true that political corruption and excess in Latin America and Africa long predate the emergence of liberation theology. Some (though not all) liberation theology advocates may have been on the wrong track, but only rarely did their opponents have anything practical or substantive to offer as an alternative to develop personal independence and material self-sufficiency. AA8 concludes by stating that participation in charity as well as social assistance is needed:

Therefore, the laity should hold in high esteem and, according to their ability, aid the works of charity and projects for social assistance, whether public or private, including international programs whereby effective help is given to needy individuals and peoples. In so doing, they should cooperate with all (those) of good will.

Thoughts?

Some sparse trolling in St Blog's today after sleeping in, balancing the checkbook and dealing with some car insurance items, a few sudoku diversions, then a trip to the library and a Japanese restaurant with the family. Then "Family Movie Night." Brittany wanted to see Jumanji again (she and Anita watched it last night), which I thought I'd seen, but it turns out I had it confused with another movie. A little rough for a nine-year-old, but that's probably over-protective dad talking there. I have an appointment with another astronomy book in bed tonight. Hopefully Anita won't be staying up too late. Your prayers, if you would please, for my wife. She's had a rough week with one of her physical ailments and despite feeling better today, she had an alarming episode while driving us in pre-drive traffic on the interstate today. Back to work tomorrow, but it's been a good day off.

The lay apostolate, according to AA7, is progressive, meaning that the aim is no less than a continual improvement in the status quo: God's plan for the world is that men should work together to renew and constantly perfect the temporal order. Does that mean things always will get better? No. It means we should work in the world, as if we expect to move closer to "perfection." Note also how AA describes what we often refer to as the secular as the temporal. Upon reflection, I like the use of "temporal" better. It does not necessarily exclude the "sacred," and it opens us to the expectation of finding the "sacred" in unorthodox places. The "good things of life," namely, the "prosperity of the family, culture, economic matters, the arts and professions, the laws of the political community, international relations, and other matters of this kind, as well as their development and progress, not only aid in the attainment of man's ultimate goal but also possess their own intrinsic value." Progress is a value, according to Vatican II. We can be realistic about our expectations of making progress outside of the agency of God's grace, but all the same, we are called to strive for it. The "temporal order" is described as independent of the realm of the Church. The Church's role is to "perfect the temporal order in its own intrinsic strength and worth and puts it on a level with (the human) vocation upon earth." This sets the table for the role and involvement of the laity in the world. It is our role, not the bishop's or priest's to bring the "strength and worth" of God's grace to bear on the ordinary and extraordinary situations of family, culture, economics, the arts, work, law, and diplomacy. These things are to retain their independence as human activities, but should be infused with the spirit of those Christians who operate within these spheres. I remember much fussing about priests who held political office. I think I would agree with those who suggest it is not seemly for a cleric to serve the public in that way. AA is not blind to bumps in the road ahead: In the course of history, the use of temporal things has been marred by serious vices. Affected by original sin, men have frequently fallen into many errors concerning the true God, the nature of man, and the principles of the moral law. This has led to the corruption of morals and human institutions and not rarely to contempt for the human person himself. In our own time, moreover, those who have trusted excessively in the progress of the natural sciences and the technical arts have fallen into an idolatry of temporal things and have become their slaves rather than their masters.

Here also, lay people must take the lead in discerning when we have stepped off into the abyss of "slavery," rather than mastering science and technology as tools to achieve good ends, not the ends themselves.

The next paragraph states the role of the clergy: a supportive and educational one for the laity. But lay people are charged with the "renewal of the temporal order" as a "special obligation." This last bit of AA7 is good to read as a whole: Led by the light of the Gospel and the mind of the Church and motivated by Christian charity, they must act directly and in a definite way in the temporal sphere. As citizens they must cooperate with other citizens with their own particular skill and on their own responsibility. Everywhere and in all things they must seek the justice of God's kingdom. The temporal order must be renewed in such a way that, without detriment to its own proper laws, it may be brought into conformity with the higher principles of the Christian life and adapted to the shifting circumstances of time, place, and peoples. Preeminent among the works of this type of apostolate is that of Christian social action which the sacred synod desires to see extended to the whole temporal sphere, including culture. Note some key principles above: charity is our motivation, action is necessary, cooperation, justice, adaptation. And the most important: social justice infusing the entire breadth of the "temporal sphere." Thoughts?

Not everybody agrees with me on this. But yesterday's report on Philadelphia priest sex abusers plus some commentary on the abusers who circumvented "orientation purity" of archdiocesan seminarians post-1988 probably supports my theory. 1. People who molest children or seduce adolescents possess a psycho-sexual pathology that surpasses (if not overpowers) their sexual orientation. 2. Such perpetrators are addicts. Perping is out of control. Their addiction is a powerful and irresistable brew combining sex and power. 3. The hierarchical nature of the Church tends to attract and support people addicted to power, regardless of their sexual orientation or their sexual acting out. 4. For a religious victim, there is no greater power to be wielded than over one's spiritual life. And for many, there is no more powerful spiritual figure than the parish priest. 5. Not only do addicts groom their victims, but they also groom their co-dependents. They use charm to con their friends, supporters, loved ones, peers, and superiors. There are no "uncharming" addicts, only creeps. And no one is safe from being charmed. Cardinal Bevilacqua is probably not a criminal. But he is probably a co-dependent dupe. 6. The suave ones are creeps, too, of course, but they cultivate an air that makes it easy to blind others to their dysfunction, their creep-dom, if you will. If you take the training materials of VIRTUS or other programs seriously, you will begin to recognize the signs of abusive behavior. Prefer an alternative? Fine. Go to Al-Anon. Listen to the stories and you'll get a bead on the creeps soon enough. 7. The much bally-hooed ban on homosexual seminarians is a diversion. No more. The Church has the power to do this, obviously, but it only diverts serious attention from the core problem. Not all priest perps are homosexual, but virtually all of them are power addicts who use sex and other inappropriate means to dominate and control their victims. Address the root addiction (power, not sex) and we'll see some action. If the institutions of the Church are serious about addressing the problem of sexual misbehavior and abuse, they will need to approach the problem from the viewpoint of addiction, not moral misbehavior. A ban on gay seminarians is laughable for sex perps. Real perps will charm their way past the admissions board, the seminary administration, their spiritual directors, their classmates, and their bishop. Be they gay or straight sex addicts, they will cultivate a surface appearance of charm and talent, leaving mostly admirers in their wake. Simple gay guys who have no sexual attraction to minors will either compromise their integrity or they will simply not apply. It would not surprise me to learn that sexual predators would be in favor of the ban on homosexuals, or actively supported it. Why? Addicts consider themselves above the rules. Such a ban would not apply to them anyway. The excitement of the "forbidden" is even intensified by such obstacles. Take it from a person who has a family of origin flush with booze and the effects thereof. None of the Church's sex or cover-up scandals shocks or surprises me. It hasn't for twenty years. And if we continue heading in the current direction, neither will it surprise me that the scandals will continue. And not only that, efforts to prevent future scandal will continue along the same co-dependent lines as today: allow ourselves to be charmed by the guilty so as to scapegoat the innocent. That is, unless Catholics collectively wake up and see the underweared emperor in our midst and call him out. I don't see a reasonable alternative.

Follow this link for a great new shot of Saturn's rings. There's a good selection of videos, too. On site this week: a shoreline on Titan, spokes popping up from the rings, and this Friday's close encounter with Tethys. JPL even runs a kid's page with interesting items worth checking out.

I often link ABC Online (Australia) in my posts. I enjoy their programming, which is driven by a staff of radio professionals who are clearly serious about serious music, but also bring the disarming Australian qualities of friendliness, familiarity, and a definite lack of snobbery to their work. If any of you readers are looking for a deeper understanding of classical music, I'd recommend Graham Abbott's Keys to Music, which airs weekly in Australia Saturday mornings, but which is available for weeks afterward online. Last week he analyzed Dvorak's much loved ninth Symphony, "From the New World." It's worth a listen. Abbott is clearly a gifted teacher, and if you were ever at a loss as to what to listen for in classical music, I'd recommend his program highly. My first exposure to the piece was stumbling across a Sesame Street clip when I was young. They played the second movement while the camera was very close to what seemed like an orange planet. Slowly, the shot pulls back and you can imagine my disappointment to see an orange, not a planet in space. When my school newspaper polled favorite songs in 1969, my choice was the "Largo" from Dvorak's 9th. "Let It Be" beat it out. Easily. It is a myth that Dvorak used an actual spiritual. He didn't. One of his students penned the text, "Goin' Home" and applied it to the music. Dvorak listened to black and native American music, but his musical themes were all his own, influenced in this work by his Czech heritage and the music he heard in his "new world." He suggested American composers should listen to the native and folk music around them, there to find inspiration for an authentically American music. Great composers like Ellington, Bernstein, Gershwin, and Adams have achieved this. I think future American sacred music can develop in this way as well.

Two definitions, for starters: The mission of the Church pertains to the salvation of men, which is to be achieved by belief in Christ and by His grace. The apostolate of the Church and of all its members is primarily designed to manifest Christ's message by words and deeds and to communicate His grace to the world. And a clarification: This is done mainly through the ministry of the Word and the sacraments, entrusted in a special way to the clergy, wherein the laity also have their very important roles to fulfill if they are to be "fellow workers for the truth" (3 John 8). It is especially on this level that the apostolate of the laity and the pastoral ministry are mutually complementary. People have their own take on what "mutually complementary" means. AA carefully makes the distinction of the "special" ministry of the Word and sacraments for the clergy, but lay people not only have "an" important role, but "their" important roles. What might these be? The very testimony of their Christian life and good works done in a supernatural spirit have the power to draw men to belief and to God; for the Lord says, "Even so let your light shine before men in order that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). Lay people aren't only involved in a passive showing of what they do. AA suggests we take initiative: " ... a true apostle looks for opportunities to announce Christ by words addressed either to non-believers with a view to leading them to faith, or to the faithful with a view to instructing, strengthening, and encouraging them to a more fervent life. "For the charity of Christ impels us" (2 Cor. 5:14). The words of the Apostle should echo in all hearts, "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel" (1 Cor. 9:16)." So, we are to take to heart the apostolic calling of St Paul. Since, in our own times, new problems are arising and very serious errors are circulating which tend to undermine the foundations of religion, the moral order, and human society itself, this sacred synod earnestly exhorts laymen-each according to his own gifts of intelligence and learning-to be more diligent in doing what they can to explain, defend, and properly apply Christian principles to the problems of our era in accordance with the mind of the Church. These new problems and errors continue to this day, making AA all the more appropriate for extensive examination and study.

A sort of segregation-speak has cropped up in the Church recently. It flows against the stated intent of the second Vatican Council. AA5 begins the second chapter of the decree, the one which sketches out the objectives of the lay apostolate. Good words to begin with: Christ's redemptive work, while essentially concerned with the salvation of men, includes also the renewal of the whole temporal order. Hence the mission of the Church is not only to bring the message and grace of Christ to men but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel. Then a statement which should give pause to those who promote the non-overlapping apostolates of clergy in the Church and lay people in the world: In fulfilling this mission of the Church, the Christian laity exercise their apostolate both in the Church and in the world, in both the spiritual and the temporal orders. But then follows an important clarification: These orders, although distinct, are so connected in the singular plan of God that He Himself intends to raise up the whole world again in Christ and to make it a new creation, initially on earth and completely on the last day. In both orders the layman, being simultaneously a believer and a citizen, should be continuously led by the same Christian conscience. The way I read this is that our formation as spiritual people cannot be peeled away from our human interactions. Sacred things are clearly distinct enough from secular things to render a usually easy discernment. But the Christian brings an identical approach to either. I don't follow the speeches and other goings-on of politicians or other public figures grilled on the role of faith in their lives. For a Vatican II Catholic, it's a no-brainer: your faith informs the living of your whole life, even between nine and five. You can't get away from it, or pretend to turn off your faith like a light switch. Before my ministry days, when I worked in telemarketing and then in public radio, I was young and naive and brought my still-being-formed Catholic sensibility to my work. Strangely enough, I think I was more successful in those days. That's not to say I've become an ogre in seventeen years of ministry, but in the secular world, there were more challenges to keep me on my toes. If anything, I often feel I've gotten soft in some areas working for the Church these years. Far from being a cushy situation, I find I have to guard against certain attitudes and assumptions.

But if it is true, then now can we address the real problem of pedophiles, misogynists, and other abusers in the priesthood?

The last four paragraphs of AA4 read as a loose collection of admonitions and suggestions. First, lay people are encouraged to open virtues and to avoid "all malice and all deceit and pretense, and envy, and all slander" as suggested by 1 Peter 2:1. In this way they attract people to the Church. A raft of New Testament Scripture quotes follow, touching on humility, avoiding ambition and worldly recognition, poverty of spirit, sacrifice, persecution for Christ's sake, as well as the promotion of Christian friendship among believers. Jesus' words are quoted, "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" summing up the thrust here. "This plan for the spiritual life of the laity should take its particular character from their married or family state or their single or widowed state, from their state of health, and from their professional and social activity. They should not cease to develop earnestly the qualities and talents bestowed on them in accord with these conditions of life, and they should make use of the gifts which they have received from the Holy Spirit." I think we have yet to achieve this on the whole. Lay spirituality, even on the progressive side, tends to model itself after the charisms of existing orders first, then adapt afterward. And while true, associating with existing orders is lauded in the following paragraph, I can't help but think that a thorough and expansive lay exploration of authentic lay spirituality is needed. We have the beginnings of this in Cursillo, TEC, REC, ME, and various movements like that. All in good time, I suppose. More virtues are listed: (Lay people) should also hold in high esteem professional skill, family and civic spirit, and the virtues relating to social customs, namely, honesty, justice, sincerity, kindness, and courage, without which no true Christian life can exist. And the Blessed Mother is held up as exemplar of the lay life in traditional language. Thoughts? Especially as to the notion of lay people developing spiritualities distinct from existing religious orders, but effective in covering the various bases?

The Kansas City Star published a good profile on Bishop Finn in Saturday's religion section. On administrative reorganization: A new leadership team is better able to take a fresh look at the various diocesan agencies, Finn said. “It would be difficult to ask people who have helped to form and shape them to be willing to set them aside to see if we should make adjustments.” My sources tell me in some instances people were not even asked to make adjustments, but merely asked to leave. Do you give people the opportunity to surprise or disappoint you? Or do you anticipate disappointment and make the move you might want to make? Tough call, either way. On the demise of the Center for Pastoral Life and Ministry: While training laity is important, Finn said, “I didn’t feel we could continue to put that amount of resources for a small number of people.” The small number of people being those hundred or so who study in New Wine and the Master's Degree Program. Another tough call. Half a mil a year is a substantial investment for lay ministry. Most dioceses don't make it. Our diocesan parishes pay some of those costs, and it might not be unthinkable to ask lay people to contribute to their own formation/education in these areas. We invest in seminaries, too, and seminarians and their parishes do not pay all of the educational costs involved there either. The common understanding in ministry is that a person is formed for service, and the benefit returns to the people served. I think I have less regard for Bishop Finn's decision here. The diocese isn't in dire financial straits. CPLM had been working hard the past few years to develop and expand a Spanish-language track in New Wine and the result of an especially large recruiting effort is being left high and dry because of the budget cuts. Much more money is put into seminary education. That's not money misspent by any means, but our understanding is that the priests we ordain exist to serve the Church as a whole. And as a whole, the people are willing to make such investments. Also troubling is that the new bishop didn't meet with any of the CPLM staff during his coadjutor year. It's difficult to ask people you don't know to make tough adjustments. But in the secular world, we lay people make adjustments all the time. On a study commission for lay education: Although Finn has authorized a study of adult education, “there isn’t going to be a program in the immediate future for training laity,” (CPLM director Denise) Simeone said. I think the study commission is in a tough spot. Would they have a green light to reconstruct something like the CPLM if the parishes wanted it? And if lay formation for ministry goes by the wayside, was it a done deal before the committee even met? Probably a tougher spot to be in than asking lay staff to adjust priorities, but maybe there's something here I don't see. Rock seems to think Finn is a good choice for bishop. He describes him as thoughtful, without ecclesiastical ambitions, prayerful, willing to tolerate opposing views, and aware of his inexperience and the need to appoint good people in key positions. I've met the new bishop a few times, heard him preach on a few other occasions. My sense is that he has a good mind and a very prayerful spirit. Once or twice during his homilies, I've seen something like a crack open up in his reservedness and the passion for faith shining through. I can't deny I didn't like his emphasis on the Mass when he preached at the diocesan convocation for teachers. I'd consider him an unorthodox choice for a bishop. He certainly has room to surprise us in Kansas City. I'm more concerned about potential administrative fumbling than his ideology. Except for our new vicar general and chancellor, the staffing decisions all over seem not well thought out. But I'm still willing to wait and see how things turn out. In my mind, he's an underdog, and I can't help but root for the underdog to pull it out well in the end.

This workshop I attended Saturday was a dissection of Claudio Monteverdi's Vespro della Beata Vergine 1610, led by Simon Carrington and sponsored by the Friends of Chamber Music here in KC. My only disappointment was not singing more of the music; we participants had a piece of the hymn Ave Maris Stella. The musical insights were fascinating. The music itself inspiring--I have to see this concert. If you're in town, you might, too. Monteverdi was part of the departure of the musical mainstream from polyphony to the Baroque style of monody. He also employed secular musical styles in his 1610 setting of Vespers. Not forty years after the Council of Trent was trying to nail down liturgy and music, one genius was testing the boundaries and succeeding magnificently. And we are more enriched for it.

One tidbit I did not know: Monteverdi was ordained a priest in his mid-60's, presumably after the death of his wife Claudia.

While I was in the neighborhood, checking out the Hitchcock-Trautman tussle, I noted the results of an Adoremus Bulletin reader's survey of top ten Catholic hymns. 1. Holy God We Praise Thy Name 2. Ave Verum Corpus 3. Immaculate Mary 4. Come Holy Ghost 5. Hail Holy Queen, Enthroned Above 6. Jesus Christ Is Risen Today 7. Panis Angelicus 8. Salve Regina 9. Soul of My Savior 10. To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King Numbers two (I was surprised it was this high) and eight are clearly chant. Number seven's most popular setting is not. But it shows that even among conservative pewfolk, Gregorian chant is not foremost in their minds for singing favorites, but comfortably nestled in with metered hymnody.

I check the Adoremus web page now and then. One of our associates here at the parish left years ago, but his Adoremus Bulletin still arrives regularly. (I wonder why he didn't give them a change-of-address notice.) Bishops Trautman, BCL head and every tradi's favorite baddie takes AB to task for their June 2005 issue, in which they print a nearly four-year-old quote from America: “The Authentic Liturgy is truly an embarrassment. What can be done? The church has in its possession a blemished but authoritative document released by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments and approved by the Holy Father. It is not realistic to expect that it will be rescinded.” Bishop Donald Trautman, America magazine, October 22, 2001 Is that what he really said about Liturgiam Authenticam, the Vatican document on translation principles? That's how the words run together. But Trautman explained in a 27 July 2005 letter to AB editor Helen Hull Hitchcock: "I believe you have rendered a great disservice to myself by taking the first sentence of the above cited quotation out of its original context, and even joining it to the subsequent paragraph of my article. In context, my original statement was limited to the use of the Neo-Vulgate in the Book of Sirach and comments by Father Alexander DiLella, O.F.M. and the Executive Board of the Catholic Biblical Association." Here's the quote embedded in two paragraphs from the original article on America's web site: Consider the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiastes). Alexander DiLella, O.F.M., of The Catholic University—a specialist on the Book of Sirach—has demonstrated that the Book of Sirach in the Neo-Vulgate has more “variants, glosses, and interpolations than any book of the Latin Bible.” How then can this Neo-Vulgate text become the absolute norm for scriptural texts used in the liturgy? The Authentic Liturgy is simply wrong in making the Neo-Vulgate the primary authority for translators of Biblical texts for the liturgy. The executive board of the Catholic Biblical Association, composed of our foremost biblical scholars, concurs in this judgment. Making the Neo-Vulgate the final arbiter in textual questions, when it is clearly known that the Vulgate is based on deficient original texts, appears to be a disservice to Scripture scholarship and the high standards of the Holy See. In this regard, The Authentic Liturgy is truly an embarrassment. What can be done? The church has in its possession a blemished but authoritative document released by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments and approved by the Holy Father. It is not realistic to expect that it will be rescinded. For the sake of the church and its scholarship, it should at least be reviewed formally by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Furthermore, to resolve the serious and fundamental questions raised by this document, a group of bishops—including bishops with liturgical and biblical backgrounds, bishop representatives of national and international translating commissions, other biblical and liturgical specialists designated by the conferences of bishops, and representatives of the Holy See—needs to meet to plan for implementation of the document at the local level. No one questions the need for a careful, well-reasoned document to assist in the challenging task of providing the church’s vernacular texts. After study and broad consultation, the document could be refined and made more complete and exact in its vision, especially with reference to the Neo-Vulgate. This would help all fulfill the words of St. Paul: “Come to some mutual understanding in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2). Nice journalism, I must say. Picking up a quote in mid-sentence, no less. Hitchcock's reaction? We are sorry that you thought this was a “disservice” to you, as this certainly was not our intention. We thought the quote accurately represented your views expressed in that article. Catch the whole catfight in this month's issue. My take: liturgical reformers have certainly given traditionalists no lack of ammunition for poor efforts at implementing Vatican II. But the poverty of some reform-of-the-reform arguments cannot be concealed by flimsy journalism like this. Hitchcock clearly disagrees with Trautman on inclusive language and any number of issues. No problem with that. But whipping the orthodoxfaithfulTM into a seasonal feeding frenzy over misquoting a four-year-old article seems a bit much.

Busy weekend navigated. My dear wife's birthday was Saturday. In my parallel life at church, I scheduled myself for a fascinating workshop analyzing Monteverdi Vespers in anticipation of this concert. Anita was not too pleased, but seeing as how she took the morning to sleep in after present-opening in bed, I wasn't feeling too guilty later. Got home last night and wouldn't you know? My new mandolin slicer was stuck somehow. On the first potato. As I was poking around, making sure the hand protector's little spikes were actually in the potato in question, it all unstuck and whoosh! The second slice took a small piece of my thumb. Ow. Good thing I like my potato slices extra thin, eh? Brittany didn't believe me when I said I left a slice of my thumb in the slicer. A few days past due on my monthly magazine deadline, my editor will be pleased I slaved away last night to finish up. No play and all work for your CS host. In Catholic circles, I see a good bit of wordplaying around certain terms. Although they like to think otherwise, conservative Catholics think such play (namely pc-speak) is the exclusive domain of progressives. Not so. We gave you the passcodes years ago. One term that fascinates me is "reform of the reform." You can find ongoing essays about it here and lots of other places, too. If I understand it correctly, the term suggests that progressives got things partly to all wrong. So naturally, the reform needs reform. My question: if the next generation comes along and decides the neotradiliturgists botched things, will they speak of reform of the reform of the reform? Then another pendulum swing around mid-century for reform^4? You get my point. Why not just keep focused on liturgical reform? Though I think liturgy is on the right track overall since 1960, the work is unfinished and there is still improvement to be made. I missed the first generation of liturgical renewal, but I'm not keen on being in the Reform3 movement. For liturgy people, liturgy is the focus of our ministry in the Church. Fine-tune reforms? Yes. But I think there's too much detachment in speaking of a "reform of the reform." Reform is/was merely the means to an end: better liturgy. And liturgy itself is not an end to itself. Liturgy is the means by which we worship God and cooperate with our sanctification. Reform is already twice removed from the main effort here. Instead of using language to stake out political or ideological territory, why not just say what's wrong with the liturgy as you experience it? Then do your homework on tradition and the arts, and make your suggestions from there.

CWN head seems to be going off about child protection programs. Commenters at Amy's, too. I confess being mystified over this. Is this a homeschooling clique concerned about teaching kids about sex before its appropriate? Is this about making lay people pay for the sins of priests and bishops? Is this about keeping psychologists and program designers at VIRTUS and lawyers and insurance people employed? Psychologists didn't have a ready-made program to address the specifics of what got people ticked off about priests molesting minors. They gave the dioceses what they've been developing for years: how to assist parents and other adults in spotting potential situations where abuse might take place. The material I read from VIRTUS 2003-date wasn't substantially different than what Anita and I heard and read in 1999-2001 when we did foster/adoptive parent training. It was much like the seminars I attended in various places since the late 1980's. I never felt like I was under suspicion. I was taught I'm responsible for the children in my care. If a child is abused, it's the fault of an adult, not the kid. My job as an adult is to make things safe, and ensure boundaries are maintained. Is the compliance with abuse programs part of the legal/insurance situation? Of course it is. Do you think the people with the purse strings are going to accept this line: "All our priests and bishops are inspired by JPII, so because they toe the moral line 100%, there will be zero abuse from now on." Ha. My take: be grateful church employees and child volunteers are required to take this training. Should you be suspicious of complainers? I don't think so. Some people just don't understand the dynamics of child abuse. I think it would be criminal to focus on church people exclusively and not encourage people who work with children to spot the various signs of abuse, bullying, inappropriate behavior that goes on. Does some of that abuse happen in the home? You bet it does. If your child was abused, odds are the perp is closer to you than you realize. Instead of being frowny-faced about all those lawyers, insurers, and psychologists making money off your donation dollar, be glad more people are on the lookout for dangerous people in your community. And if you don't want to be bothered by it, nobody says you have to go to these programs. But unless you're planning on keeping your kids locked up till they're eighteen or twenty-one, I don't know why a parent wouldn't want to be fully informed about the dangers. And if your beef is with those perp clergy and their bishops, that's another issue. How your bishop handles potential seminarians, how sick priests are cared for, what happens to abusers discovered in the clergy: none of the child protection programs cover that. Why? It's the bishop's job. If a perp priest is hovering on the edges of acceptable behavior with teens and/or children, it's up to adults to take appropriate action. Good training will tell you how. If you're concerned about the gay subculture in the priesthood, you're going to have to invent your own program for that. Personally, I'd rather cover 100% of the abusers rather than just the gay subset. And if you think that morality is the cure for all perverse ills, I don't know what to tell you. Any sexual predator is going to be able to fool you on the morality front. How do you think they manage to break down the virtuous resistance of their victims? Bottom line: open your eyes and get with the program.

He did what a leader is supposed to do. As far as his job's concerned, I'm satisfied. Time to look at other culprits, and put together the whole story.

One of an astronaut's greatest fears, but I bet no SF has been written about being lost in space for political/economic reasons.

Another capital city archbishop tendered his resignation. It was accepted. Does it mean Pope Benedict likes McCarrick more than Carroll?

"We are back to "simply Catholicism," which locates power in Christ and in his gift of authority to the Twelve. The church preaches Jesus Christ, not herself; but Christ cannot be adequately known except from within his Body, the church. Within the church, the bishops are the reality check for the apostolic faith. They are not free to change established dogma or create new doctrines, unless they want to become heretics. In being presented as a revolution rather than a development of doctrine, the Second Vatican Council has left some Catholics with the impression that bishops control rather than preserve the apostolic faith. Maybe "revolution" is the word liberals use in joy and conservatives in fear. I prefer seeing Vatican II as a metanoia. Is the "control" of the apostolic faith a product of Vatican II? While I do see where the cardinal is going on this one, I have my doubts. George seems to be saying that religious upheaval of the 60's was enacted by the bishops. So we are seen to be at their mercy for future upheaval. For George's statement to be accurate, I think Catholics would need a greater sense of the continuum of apostolic faith and its expression through the ages. After the Council we might have had more of it. But I'd like to hear more along these lines before I accepted this argument. If bishops won’t change, it must be fear or willfulness or perhaps stupidity that prevents their being enlightened. It is then up to Catholics with an agenda to force them to change or to make the changes themselves, in a separate peace. But a church of such factions not only cannot evangelize, it cannot think. That is the greatest practical difficulty, it seems to me, in the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative." When they are applied now, or even as they were sometimes applied in papal documents in the last century, people stop thinking things through. Isn't this the truth? Would that we could arrive at a time and place in which liberals and conservatives saw each other as complementary rather than adversarial. Each brings the insight of the other's faults and failings in aligning the Church's mission with that of Christ's will. In thinking things through in the church, bishops are the verification principle in the development of doctrine. Pastorally, bishops are ordained to headship, which does not exhaust leadership. Leadership is influence; sometimes it is based on office, sometimes on charism or purely personal gifts; always, in the church, it is more obviously from Christ when the leader’s friendship with the Lord is evident. When headship and leadership are not adequately distinguished, then either every leader has to become a priest or every priest has to recognize the injustice of co-opting leadership and become just like those who minister only out of the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. Many of us do not make this distinction. The cardinal is crystal clear on this point. In either case, Christ’s original gift of the Twelve disappears or is no longer adequately visible. The current PBS series on Pope John Paul II ["John Paul II: Millennial Pope"] raises the question: Is this a pope for our times or against our times? The only adequate answer is: both. That is "simply Catholicism." I can agree with this. Does that make me not a liberal for doing so? Cardinal George's "simply Catholicism" deserves a deeper look, but I'm not aware of any work since 1999 in which he has elucidated this point. Maybe it's been left to the rest of us. Thoughts?

I will critique "a type of conservative Catholicism" which makes the same error as liberals in an excessive preoccupation with the church’s visible government. This point will be short, since I presume most of you tend toward liberal Catholicism and there is no point in preaching to the choir about the deficiencies of conservative Catholicism. Naturally, I'm going to be even briefer. Chalk it up to the human condition, not the innate superiority of conservativism. Check this link for the full Commonweal article, but I think the cardinal sees the problem more clearly than he lets on: While certain that it differs fundamentally from liberal Catholicism, this conservatism shares the Bellarminian understanding of the church as society. The hierarchy therefore become central, responsible for all good as well as for all ills, able to correct all aberrations by invoking their authority. Correct in understanding that the church is essentially conservative in handing on the apostolic faith, contemporary conservative Catholicism can fail to see that the church is also, for that very reason, radical in its critique of any society. Just as liberal Catholicism is frequently uneasy with the church’s understanding of the gift of human sexuality when her teaching runs up against the popular Freudianism of the sexual revolution, conservative Catholicism is often uneasy with the church’s understanding of a just society when her social teaching draws conclusions about social services and the distribution of wealth from the premise of universal human solidarity. Extreme positions on either side, or more accurately, intensely personal views obscure God's place in the realm of faith. Cardinal George, like many other critics of Catholic liberalism, might be caught in a log/speck situation. Liberals have largely failed to speak in the necessary language to communicate the problem. So it might not be totally the cardinal's fault.

2. The central importance of science (though instead I might say rationalism to expand that a bit beyond what I would see as the natural sciences). George paints an historical picture that science is the means for solving the ills of the material world. Are such aspirations misplaced? Medical miracles in drugs, treatments, surgery save lives and prolong a productive and healthy existence for people. Plant scientists feed us. Weather satellites give us ample warning for disaster. On the other hand, people find personal fulfillment (one might say freedom) in automobiles, but at the cost of exhausting fossil fuels and committing hundreds of thousands of lives to death each year because of traffic accidents. But I wonder how much of American liberalism can really be found with roots still sticking in the gee whiz approach to science post WWII. Science was friend to some, but it also produced massive suffering in wars fought on unheard-of scales. I recall being nearly alone as a space buff in the late 60's. My Democrat relatives and many friends questioned the value of space exploration. Many were deeply troubled over Vietnam. And my sense of reading of the various liberal movements of the 60's was that people were rejecting science. at the very least they distrusted the use to which science was being put by the conservative establishment. "The bomb will save us!" That wasn't a quote from any liberal. If anything, I would argue that conservatives in America have been coopted by the Enlightenment. Libertarians would certainly nod in approval with George's first premise of Enlightenment. And the Science-as-Savior shtick was more what the culture sold Americans in the 50's than what was arising from the cultural revolution. The challenge for the church lay in distinguishing the erroneous aspects of modernity from those that were compatible with, and even developments of, the Christian faith. The challenge was compounded when major Enlightenment figures regarded the church’s doctrines and her hierarchy as the primary enemies of modern enlightenment. In some ways, they were and we are. Possibly the major Enlightenment figures didn't take a We-Are-The-Church approach to their religion. Later George asks, "Do these societal developments and the liberal economic and political institutions born of them provide models for the church’s internal life? Yes and no." I found the following to be the most appealing portion of his essay. Read carefully: As the teaching of the Second Vatican Council-particularly that of Lumen gentium-makes clear, the church is not merely a society. In the early modern era, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, arguing against a Protestant conception of the church as simply invisible with adventitious visible expression, created an ecclesiology of the visible church defined as a society. The church could be understood by looking at the Kingdom of France or the Republic of Venice. This reactive model is flawed to the extent it loses the relationships between the visible and invisible gifts that constitute the church. These relationships are the stuff of ecclesial communion. They are created among and for us when the gifts of Christ are shared. These gifts, beyond invisible grace itself, are the visible government of pastors in succession to the Twelve, the gospel as developed in the creeds and Catholic doctrine, and the seven sacraments which sanctify men and women through the action of the risen Christ. Through these gifts, Christ is always present as the Way (our shepherd or pastor), the Truth (our teacher), and the Life (our sanctifier). I doubt any sensible liberal would argue with this. I know I wouldn't. But the cardinal goes astray slightly: Because her relationship to her Lord is always one of dependence and her relationship to her apostolic foundation is normative, the church’s teaching and constitution cannot simply be apprehended and analyzed at will, using societal categories from any age. Church teaching cannot be analyzed at will, using "societal categories." But is this what liberals are doing? Perhaps some liberals. It doesn't seem terribly different than using the tenets of modern capitalism to stress economic teaching the Acton Institute finds helpful. But as a liberal, I wouldn't hold and have never held Church teaching to a secular standard. Church people, liberals and conservatives, use the Word of God, the sacraments, the Church's own teachings as a baseline, not whichever way the political or psychological winds are blowing. The primary criterion in judging any idea or form of church governance remains the church’s fidelity to her Lord. Yes. Instead of understanding Vatican II as a limited accommodation to modernity for the sake of evangelizing the modern world, the liberal project seems often to interpret the council as a mandate to change whatever in the church clashes with modern society. No. I understand Vatican II as an attempt at metanoia. Sure, we have a pragmatic approach, "These new Vatican II insights will get us more warm bodies in the pews and turn the atheist commie tide int he world." But I think the council has a less visible and more mystical aspect George glosses over, even as he alludes to it in his earlier text. And I think George misjudges the best of Catholic liberals, too. Personally, I don't give a damn about changing the Church to align with modern society. I much prefer change in order to align to the will of Christ.