Mosebach talk at Yale on Gregorian Chant

Martin Mosebach giving a talk at Yale

Check out this summary of a talk given by Martin Mosebach at Yale on Gregorian Chant and the Tradition of the Church. I particularly like his emphasis that the sacred words cannot be changed or bent to fit the music; the music must be composed around the words. Click here to check it out.

Dissecting "We Are Church"

I was again recently at another Church event where I heard a speaker use the phrase "We Are Church." I have stated in other posts how much I dissapprove of this language and this phrase, but I thought I'd go into a little more here.

It is already a well documented fact that this phrase "We Are Church" is associated with heretical and dissenting groups, most notably the International Movement We Are Church, who notoriously proposes a "Consitution" for the Catholic Church. But that being said, I realized that, apart from any questionable group who might us the phrase "We Are Church," it was the phrase itself that bothered me. The three words "We Are Church" themselves seemed to be what was irritating me, even if such horrid groups like International Movement We Are Church did not exist. Why was this bothering me so? After all, isn't it a fact that the Church is made up or people, peple like you and I? Of course this is so. Then why the anger at the phrase? I pondered this as I drove home from the event, and I wantd to share my musings.

First, the statement, "We Are Church," like everything else associated with the modern Catholic Church, is ambiguous. It can be taken in one of two senses. Sense (a): The Church is composed of individuals, or sense (b): The very substance of the Church is to be a community of individuals.

Sense (a) is easily admissible: as an entity both spiritual and physical, the composite parts of the Church are the individuals who are united in baptism and are each individually temples of the Holy Spirit, whether they are of the Church Militant, Suffering, or Triumphant. Of course the Church is made up of people. But this does not exhaust the definition of the word "Church." Besides the community aspect of the Church ("we are the Church"), there is the aspect in which the Church is a creation of God ("the Church is Christ's Church") and that the Church exists not to bolster the good feelings of each of the members or celebrate our own community (whoever heard of a community that comes together for no other reason than to celebrate that it is a community and can come together?), but to offer an acceptable worship to God, to whom all the sanctifying actions of the Church have their end. Now, these "vertical" aspects of the Church are not at all opposed to its "horizontal" aspects, provided we are using "We Are Church" in the first sense: that the consituent parts of the Church are the individuals redeemed by Christ. The Church has always understood that it has a mission to men as well as a mission to glorify and praise God; but the service of men was always subordinated to the service to God and ordered towards it. Like the old definition of charity: love of God and love of neighbor for God's sake.

Now, we get into trouble when we attempt to adopt sense (b), that "We Are Church" means that the very essence of the Church is to be a community, a "We." First, this proposes that there is some absolute good about being a community, which is not even remotely true. Most evils pepetrated by mankind are done by (or in the name of) some community that has a faulty understanding of God and man. There is nothing inherently good about community. If there was, then the Freemasons, Wiccan covens, homosexual unions and every other abominable association would be good by the very fact of being a community. Therefore, there is nothing to "celebrate" about just because the Church has a communal aspect.

Second, this view attempts to make the communal aspect the exhaustive definition of the Church, so that the Church essentially is nothing other than a community that exists to serve man and, through serving man, glorify God (but only secondarily; in this view, we love man and then love God for man's sake). In this case, man is the measure. This view of the Church totally neglects the vertical relation of the sacrificing Church to God, as well as the sacramental presence of God to His Church immediately (unless, of course, they mention it only as a means to "strengthen us for service"). This is a Church of service, but not sacrifice. With this view of the Church, the Church's mission of service and its mission to worship God actually become antithetical because the true worship of God presupposes a view of the Church which this definition's ecclesiology has rejected a priori.

Now let's look at the phrase itself. There are two points to consider. First, in the phrase "We Are Church," "we" is the subject" and "Church" is the predicate. This is not automatically a problem; subject and predicate are often equal, especially when linked with the existential verb "is." But it is important to note that the phrase "Church" is being predicated of the word "We." The speaker is essentially trying to define what "We" are, and predicates the word "Church" of "We." "We" is the measure; we are talking not about what the Church is but about ourselves. This is especially the case because, secondly, the subject and predicate are linkd by the existential verb "are", which implies an equality. Whatever we are, so is the Church, is what the statement means. Algebraically, you could write it like this:

We = Church

Again, it is true that the Church is made up of individuals, but notice that in this phrase, "The Church is composed of individuals", two things are different, though at first it may seem to be the same statement: first, we are predicating individuals of the Church, not vice versa. This statement is saying something about the Church, not about us. The Church is the subject and the measure here. Secondly, we do not use the unqualified existential verb "is" or "are"; rather, we say, "is composed of." This demonstrates that the Church is materially built of the community (living stones, as St. Paul says), but does not convey the idea that the living stones themselves are the exhaustive definition of the word Church.

It all depends on how one wants to take the statement. "We Are Church" certainly can be taken in an orthodox light, and I think none of the speakers I have ever heard use it meant it any other way. But it is ambiguous and dangerous; after somebody says it, you almost have to go up to them and say, "Excuse, but what type of ecclesiology underlies your use of the phrase "We Are Church?"" Now why would we want to use any type of phrase that needed such extensive qualification in order to guarntee its orthodoxy?

In closing, think of this, in case you think I am hairsplitting (which I am, but hairsplitting is an important function of the Church that is seldom exercised nowadays), the difference between these two phrases: (1) We are Americans (2) We are America. Though they both are similar on the surface, isn't it the case that phrase (2) is making much more sweeping assertions about "We" than phrase (1) is? I would not deny that we are all Americans; but if you say "We are America", then at best you are making a banal metaphor, and at worst you are completely misunderstanding what America is by reducing it to just the community of people who happen to be Americans. In same way, when one says "We Are Church", they are (if they are orthodox), using a stupid and banal metaphorical device; if they are unorthodox, then they probably mean it as an ecclesiological heresy. Either way, why would we want it around?

Sungenis CDs on Assisi

I recently finished listening to a 4 CD set by Catholic Apologist Robert Sungenis on the notorious Assisi Interfaith Prayer Gatherings of John Paul II in 1986 and 2002. Sungenis presents an excellent defense of Catholic Tradition and delivers a stinging rebuke to four apologists attempting to defend the infamous meeting. I highly recommend these CD's for anybody interested in the theology behind the Assisi meetings.

For some good excerpts from the CD set, click here for Sungenis' website.

Pope Benedict's Homily at Mariazell

One excerpt in particular from the Holy Father's homily caught my attention:

Only He [Jesus] is God and therefore only He is the bridge that truly brings God and man together. So if we Christians call him the one universal Mediator of salvation, valid for everyone and, ultimately, needed by everyone, this does not mean that we despise other religions, nor are we arrogantly absolutizing our own ideas; on the contrary, it means that we are gripped by him who has touched our hearts and lavished gifts upon us, so that we, in turn, can offer gifts to others. In fact, our faith is decisively opposed to the attitude of resignation that considers man incapable of truth -- as if this were more than he could cope with. This attitude of resignation with regard to truth, I am convinced, lies at the heart of the crisis of the West, the crisis of Europe. If truth does not exist for man, then neither can he ultimately distinguish between good and evil. (The entire homily is available at Zenit.)

Great stuff from our Holy Father, and especially appropriate, as Rorate Caeli points out, on the 100th Anniversary of Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis in which he condemns the errors of modernism. Do also visit Rorate Caeli for their celebration of 100 Years of Pascendi.

Pope Benedict XVI at Mariazell

In honor of our Blessed Mother's birthday and the 850th Anniversary of the most important Marian shrine in Central Europe, Pope Benedict XVI offered Mass this morning at the shrine in Mariazell as part of his three day pilgrimage in Austria (you can read his homily here). The shrine houses a miraculous wooden statute (below) of the Blessed Virgin holding the child Jesus, which was brought here by a monk named Magnus in 1157.

Upon arriving by car rather than helicopter due to the rainy weather, the Pope first went in to pray for a few moments at the shrine:

He then retired in order to be vested and came out again wearing what can only be described as tie-dyed rainbow vestments:

Here, at the beginning of the Mass, you can see that the cardinal is also vested in like manner. How disturbing! I can't seem to remember in which liturgical feast or season the rubrics call for such colors to be used!

Compare these with the picture of Pope St. Pius X at the top of the sidebar and chalk up one more reason why the Church needs to return to the sanity of Tradition.

Switzerland is doing it right!

I recently came across this article on Switzerland in the British newspaper "The Independent" talking about how Switzerland is a new home for "extremism" and "xenophobia." Of course, it was not referring to Islamic extremism, which is a growing pandemic in Europe, but it was referring to Swiss who are trying to protect their traditions and their culture. The title of the piece is "Switzerland: Europe's Heart of Darkness?" It is typical European, secular drivel.

For my part, I would like to point out some aspects of Swiss life and show how these are actually good ideas that would be beneficial to America. If you find an idea that is being criticized as extremist and xenophoic by the liberal media, chances are it is probably a very good idea. I will not quote the article in its entirety, but just give citations. You can read the full article here. Let's see how the Swiss run their little republic:

"The Swiss People's Party (the Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP) ...has the largest number of seats in the Swiss parliament and is a member of the country's coalition government.

With a general election due next month, it has launched a twofold campaign which has caused the UN's special rapporteur on racism to ask for an official explanation from the government. The party has launched a campaign to raise the 100,000 signatures necessary to force a referendum to reintroduce into the penal code a measure to allow judges to deport foreigners who commit serious crimes once they have served their jail sentence [what's so bad about that?]

But far more dramatically, it has announced its intention to lay before parliament a law allowing the entire family of a criminal under the age of 18 to be deported as soon as sentence is passed. It will be the first such law in Europe since the Nazi practice of Sippenhaft – kin liability – whereby relatives of criminals were held responsible for their crimes and punished equally [this is part of long-standing European legal tradition going all the way back to the Saxon concept of "blood guilt"; nothing novel here, despite the token comparison to the Nazi boogy-men. We can't reject something ipso facto just because the Nazis did it; this is poor reasoning, and the reference of Sippenhaft is just to scare people away from considering the proposal objectively].

Dr Schlüer [author of the law] has launched a campaign for a referendum to ban the building of Muslim minarets. In 2004, the party successfully campaigned for tighter immigration laws using the image of black hands reaching into a pot filled with Swiss passports. And its leading figure, the Justice Minister, Christoph Blocher, has said he wants to soften anti-racism laws because they prevent freedom of speech.

There is no disguising his suspicion of Islam. He has alarmed many of Switzerland's Muslims (some 4.3 per cent of the 7.5 million population) with his campaign to ban the minaret. "We're not against mosques but the minaret is not mentioned in the Koran or other important Islamic texts. It just symbolises a place where Islamic law is established." And Islamic law, he says, is incompatible with Switzerland's legal system. To date there are only two mosques in the country with minarets but planners are turning down applications for more, after opinion polls showed almost half the population favours a ban. What is at stake here in Switzerland is not merely a dislike of foreigners or a distrust of Islam but something far more fundamental. It is a clash that goes to the heart of an identity crisis which is there throughout Europe and the US.

He is fiercely proud of his nation's independence, which can be traced back to a defensive alliance of cantons in 1291. He is a staunch defender of its policy of armed neutrality, under which Switzerland has no standing army but all young men are trained and on standby; they call it the porcupine approach – with millions of individuals ready to stiffen like spines if the nation is threatened.

Switzerland has the toughest naturalisation rules in Europe. To apply, you must live in the country legally for at least 12 years, pay taxes, and have no criminal record. The application can still be turned down by your local commune which meets to ask "Can you speak German? Do you work? Are you integrated with Swiss people?" [if only America went by this type of criteria!]

It can also ask, as one commune did of 23-year-old Fatma Karademir – who was born in Switzerland but who under Swiss law is Turkish like her parents – if she knew the words of the Swiss national anthem, if she could imagine marrying a Swiss boy and who she would support if the Swiss football team played Turkey. "Those kinds of questions are outside the law," says Mario Fehr. "But in some more remote villages you have a problem if you're from ex-Yugoslavia."

The federal government in Berne wants to take the decision out of the hands of local communities, one of which only gave the vote to women as recently as 1990 [!]. But the government's proposals have twice been defeated in referendums.

It [the SVP] has warned that because of their higher birth rates Muslims would eventually become a majority in Switzerland if the citizenship rules were eased [this is a fact so poorly understood by modern European leaders]. It is what lies behind his fierce support for the militia system.

To those who say that Germany, France, Italy and Austria are nowadays unlikely to invade, he invokes again the shadow of militant Islam. "The character of war is changing. There could be riots or eruptions in a town anywhere in Switzerland. There could be terrorism in a financial centre."

The race issue goes wider than politics in a tiny nation. "I'm broadly optimistic that the tide is moving in our direction both here and in other countries across Europe, said Dr Schlüer. "I feel more supported than criticised from outside."

The drama which is being played out in such direct politically incorrect language in Switzerland is one which has repercussions all across Europe, and wider."

Whatever else one might want to say about Switzerland, they sure know how to protect what is their own. This is born out of the need of the Swiss throughout history to maintain independence from their larger and more voracious neighbors, like France, the Holy Roman Empire, the Third Reich, the Austrian Empire and the Italian Republic.

However, I cannot help think that (while I applaud the Swiss efforts to keep Muslims out), they are committing a fatal error in their logic. They seem to accept Muslim integration if the Muslims are willing to do things like "marry a Swiss" or "integrate with the Swiss." They only fear a non-integrated Muslim, but seem to accept one willing to adopt Swiss culture. In my opinion, an intergrated Muslim is no more desireable than a non-integrated one; in fact, he is even worse! This is because if a Muslim wears his traditional middle eastern garb and speak Arabic, one immediately notices the cultural differences between himself and the foreigner. But if the Muslim looks and acts just like a Swiss, then people will begin to think that they are not that different after all and that there is nothing wrong with Islam. I think what we need in the west is a big influx of non-integrated, radical Muslims who hate our culture and appear very foreign in their dress, speech and mannerisms; their presence will draw attention to their other-ness and make people take cognizance of the differences between Christian culture and Islamic culture and will more quickly turn people against Islam. People don't need to see a watered down, westernized Islam; they need to be exposed to a radical, orthodox Islam in all its barbaric fullness, and right in their back yard, before Christians will really take up defense against it. Of course, it would be best to just have no Islamic immigration at all, but sometimes it takes a radical contrast to make people see the difference.

That's right, I'm advocating that we focus on our differences! What do you say to that, Mr. Liberal Catholic?

Santiago Matamoros, ora pro nobis!

The "Trajectory" Argument

A priest I know recently expounded to me a theory on the Reform of the Reform which I have called the "Trajectory Argument." I have heard this position from many conservative Catholics, both popular speakers and in private conversation, and it seems to be gaining in popularity. I will here expound the Trajectory Argument and then, Lord willing, show why it is deficient.

The "Trajectory Argument" goes something like this. I will set it up as an Aristotelian syllogism.

Premise 1: Liturgical matters are complicated, very complicated indeed.

Premise 2: Therefore, any liturgical change or reform must be carried out delicately and over an extended period of time so as to make sure no toes are unnecessarily stepped on and nobody is confused or hurt by any changes.

Conclusion: Therefore, we ought not to desire any sudden reform but should be satisfied that we at least appear to be on the right track (ie, that the Church is heading along the correct "trajectory."

Second Conclusion: Therefore, those are to be blamed who accuse the pastors of the Church of liturgical innovation and aberration because, on the whole, the Church is on the right path and we ought to be content with that.

Have you heard something like this before? That we ought to just be content that we have an orthodox pope and that Traditional Catholicism is making gains? That we should be content with that and dare to hope that, maybe, in the next 35 years we will see a dignified celebration of the Novus Ordo coupled with a wide and generous use of the older form of the Rite?

(1) I say that this argument is defective for several reasons. First, liturgical abuse and poor liturgical worship are offenses against God, violations of the First Commandment (proximately or remotely depending on the type of abuse). A violation of the First Commandment is to be halted immediately, not over a long period of time. When Gideon saw the men of his village offering sacrifices to Baal, he went out and destroyed their altar, that very night (Jdg 6:25-32). When worship of God is being perverted, there is no "time table" for reformation; there is simply action. (Check out this post to see what kind of "time table" God went by when correcting liturgical abuse in the Old Testament)

(2) Secondly, doesn't this view betray a modernist conception of time as equivalent with progress? That if we just allow enough time to pass, that things will automatically get better? That is not at all the case. Reform is brought about by persons, persons who are connected with the Tradition of the Church. Every day that goes by without authentic reform, the gap between the present and the authentic Traditional praxis of the Church grows wider and wider. Right now the gap is about 40 years; how much demand for reform will there be when it is 60, or 80? In the Anglican revolution, there was quite a movement to return to Catholicism in the years immediately after Henry's innovations (like the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536). But how much a demand to return to Catholicism do you think there was in 1605? In 1688? What about in 1715? By this time, Catholicism was but a distant memory and everybody had gotten used to Anglicanism. If reform does not happen soon, the Church's Tradition will be a distant historical memory. Sure, groups like the FSSP, The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and the SSPX will keep alive the Tradition, but as more and more time elapses between the present and the era when the Tradition was universally accepted, it will have less and less relevance to new generations, just as Catholicism had very little relevance to an Englishman living arounf 1715.

(3) Third, and I would say most importantly, this Trajectory Argument backfires on itself because we can simply ask, "Where was the moderation and careful approach when the original reforms were instituted after the Council?" Did the liberal reformers care about offending people or confusing the faithful when they ripped out the High Altars, removed the sacred images and relegated the Tabernacles of the world to closets? It was that quick; Friday the High Altar was there, and Monday it was gone. If reforms can be brought about that quick in an errant cause, there is no reason it cannot be brought back that quickly in a righteous one.

(4) Finally, I would argue the point that liturgy is a "complicated issue." It may be a lofty, sublime and theological issue, but it is not complicated. The rubrics are plain to see: you either do it right or you don't. End of story. If you are doing the Mass wrong, it does not take a generation of catechesis and training to do it right. You just start doing it right. Period. If the people don't like it, that is their problem. God is more important. If people are scandalized by a properly done Mass, then perhaps we do not need them around anyway. It is a harsh saying, but I stand by it. The liturgy has only been complicated because of the constant creativity imposed by liturgists and other similar periti.

In conclusion, I would like to offer some quotes from a famous individual: Martin Luther King Jr. Though he is not Catholic and not referring to liturgy here in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, try to apply his words to our discussion and see how applicable they are. These are but excerpts and do not belong in any order. King is of course discussing racial matters, but think about what he is saying about gradual change vs. immediate change in the context of the renewal of the Church:

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will [this phrase expresses admirably the frustration of so many Traditionalists in the face of lukewarm support and general misunderstanding by conservatives]. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

White moderates would accept the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." [ie, You Traditionalists ask too much; it has taken 39 years to get the Motu Proprio; give the hierarchy time!] Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust. "

See! Traditionalists can use Martin Luther King Jr. for their benefit, too! Maybe next time I can find some quotes from Gandhi supporting Traditional Catholicism!

Click here for MLK's full text of Letter from a Birgmingham Jail

Excerpts from Habbakuk

Last night I was reading and meditating on the book of the prophet Habbakuk, one of my favorite of the minor prophets. He is not very widely read, but from Habbakuk come such great verses as "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4) and "the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him" (Hab. 2:20).

It is oftentimes very refreshing to read what the Old Testament prophets say about God. Modern writings and statements of Bishops so often lack the vivid imagery and depth of awe that the Old Testament Scriptures convey about God. Notice how this passage from Habbakuk chapter three refers to God's "horns" and to His, "chariot" and, my favorite, His "glittering spear." Notice also how the prophet says of his encounter with God: "When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself." Habbakuk knew that God was Holy; there was no undue familiarity here. The Bible never refers to God as love, love, love, or as Father, Father, Father (though He is both of those things), but it does call Him Holy, Holy, Holy, and the book of Habbakuk really gets this truth across well.

This is a great book for those who need a refresher after too many pages of reading about God's "pilgrim people" on their "journey of faith" and all that type of mushy language. In Habbakuk the language about God is truly beautiful and flows from the mouth of a man who had, like John the Apostle, seen the glory of the Lord and lived to tell about it. If you have time tonite, sit down and read this book. It is only three chapters long, but it deals with an important topic: God's judgment on an unfaithful nation. God bless.

A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon
Shigionoth.

O Lord, I have heard thy speech, and was
afraid: O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the
years make known; in wrath remember mercy.

God came from Teman, and the Holy One from
mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was
full of his praise.

And his brightness was as the light; he
had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his
power.

Before him went the pestilence, and
burning coals went forth at his feet.

He stood, and measured the earth: he
beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were
scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction:
and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.

Was the Lord displeased against the
rivers? was thine anger against the rivers? was thy wrath against the sea, that
thou didst ride upon thine horses and thy chariots of salvation?

Thy bow was made quite naked, according to
the oaths of the tribes, even thy word. Selah. Thou didst cleave the
earth with rivers.

The mountains saw thee, and they trembled:
the overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted
up his hands on high.

The sun and moon stood still in their
habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy
glittering spear.

Thou didst march through the land in
indignation, thou didst thresh the heathen in anger.

Thou wentest forth for the salvation of
thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed; thou woundedst the head out
of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. Selah.

Thou didst strike through with his staves
the head of his villages: they came out as a whirlwind to scatter me: their
rejoicing was as to devour the poor secretly.

Thou didst walk through the sea with thine
horses, through the heap of great waters.

When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips
quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in
myself.

Homosexuality & Media Culture

The following is a term paper I wrote for Psychology class last year, which is why it is a little bit more scholarly than most of my posts (and a little bit longer). I hope you enjoy it. Sentences in red were footnotes in the original paper.

Whatever one’s personal beliefs concerning homosexuality, it cannot be denied that the issue is a live one in the public forum today. Debates rage on whether or not homosexual couples ought to be allowed to adopt children, whether organizations such as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts should be forced to install homosexual leaders and whether or not same-sex partners ought to receive spousal benefits from employers. In the religious sphere, faithful on both sides of the issue debate whether homosexuality is due to genetic or environmental factors while the gray area between free religious expression and hate speech is challenged every day in a torrent of civil rights law suits from both sides. Meanwhile, society at large is in the process of adjusting to the open and permanent presence of gays and lesbians; one consequence of this is the national dialogue over the place of homosexual so-called marriage and whether or not it should be permitted. Everywhere, homosexuality is on the forefront of the nation’s domestic affairs.

The media has played an especially influential role in the shaping of the debate. After all, it is through the media that most Americans get their exposure to homosexuality at large. Whether it is from homosexual celebrities like Elton John and Rosie O’Donnel or from gay oriented television shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and the many other reality shows featuring gays and lesbians, most Americans shape their perception of what it means to be a homosexual by the image portrayed by the media, both in Hollywood and in the news networks. The media has always been a powerful force in the shaping of opinion; by what it covers (or refuses to cover), it has the ability to frame the context of the debate. Americans may take two different sides of the issue, but it is the media that decides in what terms the argument will be had.

This brings to the fore an important question: if our image of homosexuality is shaped by the media, exactly what image is it that the media is displaying? It has long been understood that mass media has a strong role in the shaping of society’s ideas of proper gender roles (Paludi, 2002). In what way does the influence of the media shape our attitudes towards homosexuality?

The question has so many dimensions that a thorough treatment of it here would be implausible; however, one very important facet of the problem is the question of how prevalent homosexuality is in society. By looking at how the media treats homosexuality in terms of demographics and comparing it to what studies and surveys have revealed, an idea can be reached about the media image of homosexuality and its impact on the public.

So just how many gay and lesbian people are there? This question has a long a divisive history. Gay activists have long sought to establish a larger demographic (somewhere between 10 and 15 percent) so as to be able to successfully argue that homosexuality is not a bizarre oddity but is in fact much more mainstream. Anti-gay activists, on the other hand, stress a much lower number, 1 to 4 percent, in order to demonstrate that the gay influence in society is (and should remain) negligible. One can explain 1 or 2% gay as a fringe group making radical choices; it would be harder to explain the actions of 10 to 15% as fringe behavior. One can see how the normally dull demographical question of population percentage in this case becomes a sensitive political issue.

For decades, homosexuals and the mainstream media have stated the demographic to be approximately 10%. Major magazines like Newsweek (1993, February 15) and the New York Times (1991, April 17) have all repeated the 10% figure. Some have even argued for 15%. “Ten percent of American men are homosexual and five percent of women are lesbian,” says the Washington Times (1991, November 19, p. A3). These numbers are all derived from the landmark Alfred Kinsey study of 1948. Kinsey, an entomologist who had gained a reputation for his studies of gull wasps, began collecting sexual “histories” in the late 30’s. He interviewed over 18,000 subjects and compiled his massive amount of data in two separate works, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). Kinsey asserted that there were different “grades” of sexuality, ranging from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual with several gradations in between (Kinsey & Pomeroy, 1948). Kinsey’s study concluded that between men and women the total homosexual demographic is between 7 and 15% of the population, though “homosexual” had several varying levels. [He estimated 10% predominantly homosexual for at least 3 years of adulthood, 18% bisexual or homosexual for at least 3 years of adulthood, 4% exclusively gay throughout adulthood and 37% of men with some post-pubertal homosexual experience (Kinsey & Pomeroy, 1948)]. Prior to Kinsey, the homosexual population was speculated to be around 2%, but there was no hard evidence. Kinsey’s study represents the first attempt to come up with a concrete number. Due to the controversial nature of Kinsey’s study, he gained great notoriety and his figures eventually were held up as a gold standard in sex research.

Kinsey’s numbers pleased the homosexual community very much because they challenged the conventional view of homosexuality as deviant. The argument is based on the sheer force of numbers: if a behavior is common or practiced frequently, then it cannot be abnormal. The numbers were rarely challenged until the late 80’s and early 90’s when more recent surveys began indicating much lower numbers (Palladino, 2007). Over thirty-five studies conducted from the early 80’s up to the early 90’s yielded a median percent of 4.1% of males and 2% of females (FRI, 1993), with individual demographics finding percentiles as low as 0.6%. Clearly, more advanced knowledge in behavioral science and better survey methods have whittled down Kinsey’s numbers significantly.

One study that gained particular notice was conducted by the liberal Alan Guttmacher Institute in 1991. The Guttmacher study interviewed over 3,300 men throughout the country and estimated the gay population at 1.1%. The findings provoked outrage from many gay groups who had previously considered the Guttmacher Institute friendly to their cause. Though the gay activists scoffed at the new findings, they could come up with little to counter the survey save appeals to emotion. Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the nation’s largest homosexual rights group, said on the Guttmacher study: “If everyone examines their own conscience, they know that more than one in 100 people is gay...Common sense tells you that this survey is nonsense” (Washington Times, 1991, April 16, p. 3A). The gay publication Washington Blade said of the Guttmacher numbers: “Most of us believe in our heart of hearts that these [numbers] are gross underestimates” (Washington Blade, 1991, April 18, p. 3). Thus, the only thing the homosexual advocacy groups had to counter the unsatisfactory Guttmacher numbers with was “their own conscience”, “common sense,” and what they felt “in their heart of hearts.” Not exactly scientific method.

So, if one steps back and takes a reflective review of the studies concerning gay population over the past fifty years, one will see the first studies done by Kinsey yielding large numbers, 7 to 15% exclusively gay and 37% having some homosexual experience. [Some reasons why Kinsey’s numbers came under scrutiny: his first 10,000 histories included 1,500 convicted sex offenders; included 600 male and 600 female prostitutes in his database; regularly visited prisons and homosexual communities in his sampling efforts; no random or probability based design; used underworld contacts to get into gay and sexually deviant groups; showed disinterest in regular, “dull” sexual histories of most ordinary Americans, which do not show up as often in his sample as they should have (FRI,1993)]. Kinsey’s numbers begin to get criticized only in the early 80’s with most studies by the 90’s (even ones conducted by liberal think-tanks like the Alan Guttmacher Institute) positing only 0.6% to 4.1%. One would expect the mass media to reflect these changes in their broadcasting. After all, the media, both in the entertainment and news sectors, is supposed to be a pretty fair reflection of American life, like a cross section.

However, the media response to the gay population has been quite different than the reality suggested by the demographic studies. Though it has been demonstrated that homosexuals make up only a tiny slice of the population, mainstream and cable networks have increasingly focused on homosexual issues in the past decade. First, take the issue of gay television characters. David Wyatt of the Univeristy of Manitoba conducted a study (2001) on homosexual television characters from 1961 to 2001 and reported the following statistics: from 1961 to 1971, only 1 homosexual character appeared on television. [“Homosexual character” being defined as (1) a character who appeared in at least three episodes and (2) is explicitly gay, lesbian or transgendered. Effeminate (but not gay) male characters and “manish” (but not lesbian) females were not included]. From 1971 to 1980, 58 characters were documented. From 1981 to 1990, there were 89 characters documented and from 1991 to 2000, 317 characters. In 2001 alone Wyatt counted an addition of 107 new homosexual characters.

Granted, the increase in numbers could be explained somewhat by the multiplication of networks in addition to changing social norms that permit now would have been unthinkable in the 1960’s. However, it seems rash to attribute the entire increase to those two factors alone. Wyatt’s numbers reflect steady growth from the 60’s to the 80’s, then a sudden 356% spike into the 90’s, followed by (if current trends continued) a further 337% jump in the first decade of the new millennium. Gay characters seem to be proliferating at an exponential rate on television. Though the author was unable to locate a statistic as to what exact percent of television characters are gay, 317 characters in the 1990’s and 107 in 2001 alone seems to be much more than 1 to 4% of the TV population. What is left is the fact that networks create homosexual characters at a rate way out of proportion with the demographics that actually exist in society (Giltz, 1996). Why is this?

Batman & Robin: Under Homo-Suspicion?

Beginning around 1997 with the coming out of Ellen on the Ellen Degeneres show, television seems to have an increasingly steady focus on gay characters. What is the cause of this? The answer seems to be economic. The gay community has proven to be a very lucrative market for the networks, and so instances of homosexuality on television have risen astronomically. Julia Duin of the Washington Times put it very succinctly in her 2003 article. “A month after the Supreme Court decision legalizing sodomy and Canada’s recognition of same-sex “marriage”, analysts say an almost casual acceptance of homosexuality pervades the media.” (2003). The homosexual clique has proven to be very loyal to programs and stations that adopt pro-gay attitudes, and such shows often attract heterosexual viewers who want “TV with an edge.” In the same article, David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign points out the financial element: “If there’s not a market for these programs, they’d not be on the air.” Networks are discovering that homosexual themes mean big ratings and big bucks. Julia Duin reports “according to the Nexis database, 350 stories about homosexuality appeared in major papers from May 26 to June 25 [2003]. That rose to 537 stories from June 26 to July 25 (Washington Times, 2003, July 29). Conservative critics argue that the media is intentionally increasing its coverage due to a latent agenda. In the same Washington Times article, Tim Graham of the Media Research Center said of the media: “There’s this assumption that we’re going in this 100 percent pro-gay direction and no one’s going to stop it...The media is trying to establish a sense of inevitability, which causes anxiety in people.”

In the business of media, homosexuals are seen as another niche demographic that must be courted, much like African Americans are for BET and UPN. Witness the creation of the Logo network, launched in June 2005 as the first mainstream basic cable gay channel. In its first month alone it was broadcast into 13 million homes. Why a basic cable channel for a group who only accounts for 0.6 to 1.1% of the population? It may not be proportional, but if that 1.1% proves to be a gold mine to the networks and the advertisers, then one can understand the media’s interest. Journal of Homosexuality featured an article back in 1996 written by Dr. M. Wayne DeLozier, Professor of Marketing at Nichols State University in Louisiana, that advised future advertisers and marketers to “devote greater attention” to the gay-market, which DeLozier describes as “well-educated, [having] high discretionary income, informed socially and politically” and advises that it is a “potentially lucrative market segment.” It seems that in the years since 1996, DeLozier’s students took his advice to heart.

So what is the image that the media is attempting to portray about homosexuality? The research and the statistics seem to indicate that the media is attempting to mainstream it as much as possible, by reporting on it and showing programs featuring gay characters way out of proportion with the actual homosexual demographic. Some accuse the media of doing this out of an ideologically liberal pro-gay sympathy, but others (including some gay activists themselves) say the reason is profit. Regardless of which side one falls on, the important thing to notice is this: both sides admit that homosexuals are over represented in the media. According to the most recent statistics, there are about as many homosexuals in America as there are Native Americans. Yet one would be hard pressed to find 317 Native American television characters during the 1990’s, or 107 new ones in 2001 alone. There is a double standard that applies to homosexual programming that does not equally apply to other minorities because the others have not proved as lucrative to the television industry as the homosexuals have.

Finally, what effect does all of this have on the public perception of homosexuals? The most obvious answer is that people will be lead to believe that there are more homosexuals out there than there actually are. After all, if anywhere from 10 to 30% of television programming features homosexuals, then one would naturally assume that homosexuals constituted a proportional percentage of the population. This goes back to the original politically-charged question about numbers: if people believe that 10 to 30% of the populace is gay, then it would be harder to argue that homosexuality is caused by environment and thus the argument that homosexuality is a healthy, normal (albeit different) lifestyle would gain much credibility with the public. The granting of such a status to homosexuality would revolutionize our very society, and that is why there is such a battle over the demographics.

In the end, the reality will be shaped by our perception. People will be conditioned by whatever they see and respond to enough times. As long as there is money in the homosexual market, it seems that TV will continue to be inundated with gay-themed shows. There is always the danger of a backlash, however. Tim Graham of Media Research Center warns, “The media might have overestimated the public’s interest in homosexual issues. They might have mistaken the tolerance of homosexuality with an interest in their issues” (Washington Times, 2003, July 29). Is homosexual programming a permanent addition to the media, much like black programming has become? Or will it prove to be a brief but lucrative bubble, destined to burst once the public has had its fill of gay men on its TV screens? Only time will tell.

Should Mother Teresa be canonized?

I feel I may be opening a can of worms here, but I think that it might be worth it to bring up this important topic. I have been motivated to write on Mother Teresa after reading some of Athanasius' posts on the late John Paul II. There, Athanasius posited the argument that though nobody doubted the sincerity and virtue of the late Pontiff, his failures in his role as shepherd and guardian of the deposit of faith make him an unsuitable candidate for canonization. I here propose a similar assertion for Mother Teresa: while nobody doubts the goodness of her deeds working among the poor in Calcutta, her statements about God in reference to non-believers, are extremely problematic. This is especially troubling since missionary work was her primary goal (ie, the conversion of souls to the true faith for love of God). In looking at her cause for sainthood, the problem lies in the matter of faith, the first and most important of the heroic virtues necessary to be proclaimed a blessed.

Before I go on, let me warn you against having a knee-jerk reaction against what I am about to say. "How can you say that about Mother Teresa? She did so much good - you don't know her heart!" True - she did more good than I'll ever do. But this isn't about "knowing her heart"; it's about reading some very troubling statements she made in writing. So, if you want to accuse me of arrogance or foolishness in stating that she should not be a saint, please direct your comments towards the actual words of Mother Teresa, which are the subject of this post.

So, what did Mother Teresa do that was so suspect to sound doctrine? Take this quote, taken from her her authorized biography:

"I would die for my Catholic faith but I would never try to force it upon any one. We never know how God is speaking to a person. I hope to help Muslims become better Muslims, Hindus better Hindus, Christians better Christians." (Symbol of Selflessness, World, Vol. 12, No. 18 (Sept. 20, 1997), 11.

Make "Hindus better Hindus?" How about making Hindus into Catholics! Working among the poor is great, but if it does not lead to conversions, then you are wasting your time in ministering only to the bodily needs while neglecting the more weighty matters of the soul. "Better to enter enter eternal life maimed than to have your whole body cast into hell..."Nor is this an isolated statement of Mother Teresa. Here is a similar quote:

"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic. We believe our work should be our example to people. We have among us 475 souls - 30 families are Catholics and the rest are all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs—all different religions. But they all come to our prayers." (http://www.ewtn.com/motherteresa/words.htm)

In fact, this seems to be something she likes to repeat again and again. Elsewhere, in Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work (by Desmond Doig, Harper & Row, NYC, 1976, p.156), Mother Teresa affirms, “If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, and a better whatever we are.... What God is in your mind you must accept”. "What God is in your mind you must accept"? That sounds like the God of alcoholics anonymous, not of Catholicism. Not only was she looking to make "better Muslims", but she herself frequently allowed her sisters to participate in the idolatrous worship of false religions. Take this quote from one of her recollections:

“We went every day to pray in some temple or church. The Archbishop gave us permission to do so. We prayed with the Jews, the Armenians, the Anglicans, the Jains, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, and the Hindus. It was extraordinary. All hearts united in prayer to the one true God” (Proclaiming the Gospel, April 1997).

"Hearts united in prayer to the one true God"? Hinduism has an estimated 330 million Gods. Which of these 330 million was Mother Teresa praying to, and how did she know that it was synonymous with the "one true God?" This is my main problem with her: Mother Teresa seems to have been a believer in syncretism, that all religions basically worship the same God and that they are all equally valid paths to Him. This she proclaims in a letter written to the Indian President: “Some call Him Ishwar, some call Him Allah, some simply God, but we have to acknowledge that it is He who made us for greater things: to love and be loved. What matters is that we love. We cannot love without prayer, and so whatever religion we are, we must pray together.” For any traditional Catholic, the idea that the Trinitarian God is the same as Allah or Ishwar is blasphemous.

Furthermore, her one "miracle" is weakly attested. In 2002 the Vatican recognized one miracle, the cure of Monica Besra, a 35-year-old villager from northern India cured of an ovarian tumor. Besra and the Missionaries of Charity claim that the tumor vanished in September 1998 when a medallion with an image of the late Albanian nun was applied to the site of her pain.

However, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, chief gynecologist who treated the woman at Balurghat District Hospital in West Bengal, says that it was quite possible that his patient was cured by four anti-TB drugs she was taking at the time, which could have dissolved the tumor. He said he admires Mother Teresa greatly and thinks she should be beatified for her work among the poor. But not for this case. “She [Besra] had a medical disease which was cured by medical science, not by any miracle,” he says. His hospital superiors back him up, saying that records show she responded to the treatment steadily. Five doctors in Rome consulted by the Vatican on the case disregarded this scientific probability and hastily agreed there was no medical explanation for the cure. Mustafi said he was never contacted by the Vatican.

Monica Besra, of course, believes in the miracle (by the way, her own husband disbelieves in the miracle and attributes the healing to the doctors), but admits that she was receiving medical treatments from the doctors at the state-run Balurghat Hospital at that time. “Those who love Mother will believe,” she says simply. That she loves Mother Teresa there is no doubt. But it is not sentiment that determines the value of a miracle in the normal processes of the Catholic Church…

This is a far cry from the kind of scrupulous verification that went into determining the authenticity of the Lourdes miracles in 1858. How can the Vatican approve a miracle when they never even contacted the doctor in the case? Besra's statement that "Those who love Mother will believe" sounds a lot like the Medjugorje enthusiasts who blindly defend Medjugorje no matter what facts present themselves that the supposed apparitions are fraudulent. So in this case: the woman appeals to emotion and "love" over the head of careful inquiry and scrupulous analysis.

I do not think Mother Teresa deserves to be raised to the altars. Do I believe she is in Heaven? I think she is absolutely on her way there. She loved Jesus passionately and exercised heroic virtue when it came to serving men. But she unfortunately did this at the expense of the pure truth of the faith. As Athanasius says about John Paul II, I will pray for Mother Teresa, but not to her.

We should also ask, how many conversions did she affect in India? St. Vincent Ferrer is said to have converted over 50,000 Muslims. We hear so many stories of Mother Teresa's acts of compassion and love and how people were changed by her; how many conversions have the Sisters of Charity recorded? I haven't heard any numbers on this. My guess is because there aren't many. Why would there be? After all, Mother Teresa herself said, "It is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim."

Mother Teresa is a wonderful role model for serving the poorest of the poor. But let us reject all forms of sycretism and remember the words of Sacred Scripture: "All the gods of the heathen are demons, but the Lord made the heavens" (Psalm 95:5).

Did Jeremiah Hide the Ark on Mt. Nebo?

Mt. Nebo: 2 Maccabees 2:4-8 claims the Ark was hidden here by Jeremiah

Continuing our series on the whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant, we come to the third possibility: that the prophet Jeremiah hid the Ark of the Covenant on Mt. Nebo prior to the Babylonian invasion, where it has been lost ever since. The primary proof for this conclusion comes from 2 Maccabees 2:4-8, where it is written:

It was also in the writing that the prophet [Jeremiah], having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God. And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: "The place shall be unknown until God gathers His people together again and shows His mercy. And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that a place should be especially consecrated" (2. Macc. 2:4-8).

This theory is also supported by some archaeological finds in the mid-1980's by an American archaeologist named Tom Crotser who carried out excavations on Mount Pisgah (the highest point in the Mt. Nebo range) in 1981. In his excavations, Croster reportedly discovered "a large object covered with blue material", which they measured to be "62 inches long, 37 inches high and 37 inches deep." Crotser, however, who runs the Institute for Restoring Ancient History in Kansas, also claims to have found Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel and has little professional credibility. Though Crotser claims to have not only discovered the Ark but even photographed it, he for some reason refused to attempt to bring the Ark out or tell anybody else where it was. He said, "'God sent me only to locate the Ark. I was not to open it; neither was I to bring it out." Indeed, he believed his very expedition was ordained by God: "'I knew that God had chosen us to find this most sacred box that belongs to the Almighty. It belongs to Him for this specific purpose: the Regathering of His People Israel for the receiving of the Kingdom of God on earth."

This second quote demonstrates another weakness in Crotser's credibility: that his "discovery of the Ark" is related directly to his messianic-political beliefs about the State of Israel. Though Crotser did not move or touch the Ark, he claimed to have photographed it. When asked for the photographs, he replied that he would not release them until he had first shown them to London banker, and Jew, David Rothschild, who Crotser believed would fund the building of a new Temple in Jerusalem (incidentally, Rothschild referred to the claim as a "pure joke"). Thus, the photos never surfaced and Crotser quietly went away. But what were his plans following the Ark debacle? Crotser says, "In 1985, I will be moving to Jerusalem. In '86, I will witness the mark of the beast. In '87 I will be one of God's Chosen 144,000 sent by Christ to preach the Word. In '88 I will meet Jesus Christ on Mount Sion which is 125 miles north of Jerusalem. And then, from Revelation chapter 11, I will be in Jerusalem when the two witnesses are assassinated. For three and a half days they will be dead, then rise and go into the city of Petra where the 144,000 will be. Soon after the Battle of Armageddon will be fought. And Christ will establish his Kingdom on earth and rule and reign as King for 1,000 years of peace." This should be enough to discredit him.

But on a more serious note, what about this verse from Maccabees? Since this is from Sacred Scripture, does this not prove irrefutably that the Ark is on the summit of Pisgah in Mount Nebo? As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, the answer is no, for a very simple reason relating to Scriptural infallibility. Regarding the passage from Maccabees cited above, the Encyclopedia notes that:

"[T]he letter from which the above-cited lines are supposed to have been copied cannot be regarded as possessing Divine authority; for, as a rule, a citation remains in the Bible what it was outside of the inspired writing; the impossibility of dating the original document makes it very difficult to pass a judgment on its historical reliability."

If we re-read Maccabees carefully, we see that indeed, the account is said to be transcribed from a letter, and letters and outside writings which are quoted in the Bible do not therefore gain canonicity, but retain their original authority. Therefore, the fact that this citation appears in 2 Maccabees does not give it any infallible authority, though, as the Encyclopedia says, neither ought it to be discarded automatically.

In my opinion, the argument that the Ark is on Mt. Nebo fails for the following reasons:

1) No constant, historical tradition of the Ark being there, even in the Franciscan Church that sits on Mt. Nebo. Though the Church claims to be the resting place of Moses (which I think is a tenuous claim), there is no tradition of anything to do with the Ark here. Click here for info on this Church of the Jerusalemite Franciscans.

2) Archaeological expeditions, like Crotser's, have turned up no promising evidence.

3) It is unlikely that Jeremiah, who was at such odds with the Jerusalem priesthood in the period before the destruction of the Temple, would have been permitted by them to simply take the Ark away. Remember, the Jerusalem priesthood of Jeremiah's time did not believe his prophecies about the destruction of the city, and thus would have no incentive to move the Ark, let alone give it to Jeremiah, whom they despised.

4) Scripture seems to attest that the Ark was gone by the reign of King Josiah (see II Chronicles 35:3), at least 25 years before the coming of Nebuchadnezzar.

5) Like the assertion that the Ark is under the Temple Mount, this one seems to be tied up with political-Zionist aspirations that have little to do with true, objective archaeology.

6) As we have seen, the Scriptural reference to the Ark being on Mt. Nebo is taken from a quotation and thus is not inerrant.

These factors seem to indicate that the Ark of the Covenant is not on Mt. Nebo. This leaves us only one of our original four options left for examination: could the Ark be in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church of St. Mary of Zion in the Ethiopian City of Axum?

Click here for the previous article in this series.

Click here for Tom Crotser's laughable account of his "discovery" of the Ark

UPDATE! I am now a bit more uncertain about some propositions in this article. Please read the comments for more info.

Labor Day - USCCB

Sorry I have not posted for a few days; I was busy for Labor Day weekend, but hopefully everybody had something better to do on Labor Day weekend than go on this blog! Speaking of Labor Day, check out the USCCB's comments on the holiday here. Notice how they talk briefly about labor and then spend the remainder of the document going on about how great illegal immigration is and how morally wrong it is to try to stop it. They talk as if being against illegal immigration is somehow a violation of a person's human dignity or something. Another reason the USCCB has little authority in my eyes; good thing some bishops are finally saying the same.

Pilgrimage to Mariazell

In anticipation of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI's upcoming visit to the Marian Shrine at Mariazell in Austria, I took part in a pilgrimage there today. Mariazell is an 8 hour walk from Gaming, at the end of which, exhausted and hopefully holier than when we began, we heard Mass (offered ad orientem!) at the shrine. Mariazell is the most important pilgrimage site in Austria as it has housed a miracle-working image of the Blessed Virgin carved in lime-tree wood since 1157. You can visit the official website of the Mariazell shrine here (in German).

We walked through some of the most beautiful country I have ever seen. Needless to say, my feet are now killing me, but if I manage to go to confession this week and detach myself from all venial sin, I will be the grateful recipient of a plenary indulgence. So, I'll deal with sore feet. Along the way we prayed together all 15 decades of the holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary (as well as the 5 new decades that John Paul II decided to add to the Rosary, thus throwing off the correspondence between the Rosary and the Psalms).

The few pictures that I managed to take do not do justice in the least to the awesome majesty of the Alpine Mountains. Nevertheless, here is one of my favorites.

And here at last, our destination comes into view: the church at Mariazell. Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis!

The Ecumenical Import of the TLM

Yesterday, The New Liturgical Movement posted this headline: Russian Orthodox Patriarch, Alexy II Praises Letter on 1962 Missal.

If you are interested in either the ecumenical movement or the Traditional Latin Mass you might find the above linked post to be an interesting read. Its focus is Alexy II's positive reaction to Pope Benedict XVI's decision to derestrict the Traditional Latin Mass.

This called to mind a very good article written last year on this same topic by Brian Mershon entitled, Archbishop Burke, Bishop Rifan Comment: Will Classical Liturgy Aid Reunion with Eastern Orthodox?

Some excerpts from Mershon's article follow:

Bishop Rifan: "I really think that the Traditional Latin Mass widely and freely available would be, among many other good reasons, a great benefit in the field of the true ecumenism with the Orthodox," he said. "This would be primarily because the Traditional Liturgy is much more similar to the Oriental [Eastern] rites in the aspect of the sacred, veneration, and beauty."

Archbishop Burke: "It seems to me for the Eastern rites, and for those of the Orthodox Churches, the reform of the liturgy after the council and the concrete expression is so stripped of the transcendent, of the sacral elements, it is difficult for them to recognize its relationship with their Eucharistic Liturgies," he said.

Dr. Alcuin Reid (a noted liturgical scholar): "I suspect that our current liturgical state does not exactly inspire confidence in them," Dr. Reid said. "The Holy Father is, no doubt, aware of this, and most probably hopes to give a sign that Rome wishes to set her liturgy in order once again, and that indeed Rome respects legitimate traditional liturgical rites.

John Cheevers (an Eastern Orthodox layman): "Organic development in liturgy is permissible. Radical invention is not. The Pauline liturgy implicitly seems to move away from the clear expressions of faith about the sacramental nature of the Divine Liturgy commonly understood in the undivided church of the first millennium."

Fr. Jano (a Ukrainian Catholic preist): "On the few occasions when I have served the Mass in Roman Catholic parishes, I have been very surprised to discover how uncomfortable I am with praying to God while facing the congregation," he said. "Probably the most jarring example for me, to illustrate this point, is when I have seen Roman priests reading a prayer at Mass and gazing intently at the congregation while uttering the prayer. I've never understood this," Fr. Jano said. "If you have something important to say to your Father, why would you stare at your brother when you're speaking to Him?

Fr. Thomas Kocik (a Roman Catholic Priest): "The Orthodox are justly disturbed not only by abuses in the post-Vatican II liturgy, but also by approved practices such as female altar servers, Mass 'facing the people' and Communion in the hand," he said. "Given the East's intense conservatism, I think the freeing of the Tridentine liturgy bodes well ecumenically, because these problematic practices are simply not standard features of the Classical Roman rite." "The Orthodox may interpret this as evidence of a renewed seriousness in the Roman Church about the ancient maxim, 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' meaning that as we believe so we pray, and vice versa," he said. "Doctrine and worship influence each other."

Fr. Joseph Santos (a Roman Catholic priest): "Most Orthodox that I know agree that the change in the liturgy was disastrous for ecumenical relations." Fr. Santos said that the rule of "lex orandi, lex credendi" is extremely important in the Orthodox Church. "It is what binds them together as a Church that guards jealously that which has been handed down from the Apostles. If the words and actions are changed, so is the faith; especially in the minds of the laity.

The Cure d'Ars on Modernism

The Cure d'Ars, St. John Vianney, is one of my favorite modern saints. Anyone who has read his fiery sermons, heard of his personal battles with demonic forces in the Ars rectory in the evening, or admired his wit and sagacity (notwithstanding his lack of formal education) cannot have anything but admiration and gratitude for this humble saint and patron of parish priests.

The saints often have a supernatural insight into the things of God, and though they may not always have mystical revelations like Teresa of Avila or Hildegard of Bingen, they always have a poignant and succint way of phrasing deep truths that are at once simple and profound. The following story from the life of the Cure d'Ars is one of my favorites. It is paraphrased from the work The Cure of Ars Today by Fr. George Rutler.

As the fame of the humble priest of Ars had spread throughout all of France, many people of all states in life flocked to hear him preach. Priests came from miles around to get advice from the saintly Cure, and lay people turned Ars into a virtual pilgrimage sight. In those days (c. 1845), Modernism had just begun to rear its ugly head in the Church. Mens minds had been infected with the errors of the French Revolution and in 1848 there had been socialist-atheist uprisings throughout Europe. St. John Vianney seemed unmoved by all of this, however, and his life of penance, prayer and preaching went on as usual at Ars.

One day, a certain theologian came to speak with Father Vianney. The Cure, always welcoming to anyone who desired to see him, met gladly with the young theologian and walked with him around the parish grounds. While they walked, the young theologian began explaining all of the modernist theories of biblical criticism, the new morality and all of the other ideas popular in the universities of the day. Fr. Vianney walked slowly, listening intently and nodding his head as he listened to the young theologian expound the novel doctrines. When the young man finally finished, the Cure of Ars stopped and put his hand lovingly on the young man's shoulder. Then, with heartfelt charity and a great big smile, he said to him, "My friend, you are an idiot." Then he bid the young man farewell and returned to his parish.

C.S. Lewis in Screwtape Letters says the one thing that the devil hates most is mockery because it refuses to take him seriously. I think the same thing is true of modernism! We ought to view modernism the way it views orthodoxy: as a bizarre aberration and something not worth serious scholarly debate; something held by "idiots." The greatest saints of the modern era, like John Vianney, Padre Pio and Maximilian Kolbe, do not so much act offended by modernism as confused. In their single hearted devotion to God, they are confused why anybody who calls themself a Catholic would betray the faith. Somebody once told Padre Pio, near the end of his life, about all of the liturgical innovations being practiced in certain places. He shook his head in confusion and said, "Why would anybody do such a thing?" He truly didn't understand why anybody would want to tamper with the liturgy! This attitude ought to be ours as well: humble confusion!

Is carbon dating accurate?

A fossilized human finger. According to evolutionary science, humans have not been on the earth long enough for their remains to become fossilized, a process that is supposed to take millions of years.

A fossilized foot inside of a non-fossilized boot. I didn't know they had boots 60 million years ago!

As a skeptic of evolution, I was very surprised (and delighted!) to find the following passages in a book on prehistoric Europe I am currently reading. I would not have been surprised if this passage had been in a book skeptical of evolution, but this book, Exploring Prehistoric Europe by Dr. Chris Scarre, Deputy Director of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge, UK, is a solid, pro-evolutionary piece of work. Nevertheless, check out this paragraph on what the author says on crabon dating [my commentary in red] (pg. 2-3):

"Since the Second World War, the dating of archaeological sites has been revolutionized by the invention of absolute dating techniques. These make it possible to go beyond labeling things "Early Neolithic" or "Late Bronze Age" and give them instead an accurate age expressed in calendar years [okay, so he has just asserted that these new dating techniques are "accurate." Keep that in mind.]

The most famous of these new dating methods is radiocarbon dating, based on the decay of the radiocarbon isotope carbon-14. Any material that contains carbon, such as wood, bone or charcoal, can be dated by this means. Since its invention in the late 1940's, the method has undergone a series of refinements. One of them takes account of the discovery that the amount of naturally occuring carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies from time to time in response to fluctuations in solar radiation [in other words, it throws off their calculations]. This means that "crude" radiocarbon dates have to be "corrected" in order to arrive at accurate calendar ages [wait a minute, if you are carbon dating in order to find the age, how can you "correct" your findings when you don't yet know the age of the object in question? And what will you base your correction on, since if carbon amounts "fluctuate" throughout time, how will you know how much was in the atmosphere in, say, 10,000 BC? If you do not know that, how can you "correct" your findings?] All the radiocarbon dates quoted in this book have been corrected in that way, except those relating to the Paleolithic (over 10,000 years ago), for which no correction has yet been devised [so, for anything over 10,000 years, there is "no correction" for the admitted fluctuations in carbon-14 dating. Remember this].

A second problem is precision. Corrected radiocarbon dates are generally accurate-they point to the right place on the right timescale-but they are by nature imprecise-they don't give an individual year date, but a time bracket. Some of the early radiocarbon dates had ranges extending over hundreds of years, but most recent dates are precise to within a century or so. It still happens, however, that radiocarbon dates for events that are known to be successive can overlap, owing to their imprecision. The imprecision becomes greater the further back in time we go, until around 40,000 years ago when radiocarbon dating reaches its upper limit ["reaches its upper limit?" "40,000 years ago"? So, essentially you cannot date anything older than 40,000 years with any sort of accuracy, and even past 10,000 years there is "no correction" for the inaccuracies of the method. From whence comes these dates saying that man evolved a million years ago, that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago, and so on? If anything over 40,000 years is past carbon dating's "upper limit", then what the heck are scientists doing trying to offer dates for stuff before that?]."

This, however, does not stop this professor from in the very next chapter going on to talk about the Paleolithic settlements at Terra Amata, France, which he dates at 380,000 years old. Later in the book, on his chapter on the rock carvings of Coa, Portugal, he says this about attempts to date the rock:

"The first set of carbon dates showed the engravings might well be Paleolithic, and were certainly over two-thousand years old, while the second set suggested they were under two-thousand years old! Studies of erosion gave an age of up to 6,500 years, and measures of chlorine-36 (produced by the action of cosmic rays on the exposed rock) showed that the rock surface had been exposed for over 100,000 years. In sum, the whole exercise was a failure, and none of the methods provided a clear and reliable date. But there is certainly nothing about them to make us abandon the generally held view that many Coa engravings are Upper Paleolithic"

(pg. 54).

Amazing! He did say that other methods besides carbon-14 were used, but admitted that they were all contradictory, that "the whole exercise was a failure, and none of the methods provided a clear and reliable date." But then he just throws out all of the evidence and says that we should not take it into consideration when assuming that it is Upper Paleolithic (ie, older than 10,000 years). Basically, he is asserting that (1) the scientists came to the site with a pre-conceived notion that it was older than 10,000 years, (2) they tested just to confirm their preexisting notion, (3) the testing failed to confirm their notion that it was definitely older than 10,000 years, (4) so they chucked out the testing and held to their assumption anyway. Now, is that proper scientific method?

Remember this next time some scientist is claiming that stuff they have dated is so many "millions" of years old. They have no clue; by this author's admission, nothing older than 40,000 years is accurate anyway, and none of the other types of dating tests can provide a reliable date. This should demonstrate to you that the supposed "evidence" for evolution is not as strong as it first seems.

"Back to the People"

I know I am certainly not the first one to mention this, but I am so sick and tired of people referring to the Traditional Latin Mass as being said with the priest's "back to the people." The secular media and the Catholic progressive media consistently refer to the "back to the people" element of the Mass of St. Pius V.

"But Boniface," you will say, "isn't it true that in the old Mass, the priest's back was to the people?" As is quite often the case, one can get the facts straight but miss the point entirely. Yes, the back of the priest did face the people. Now, first of all, what do we mean by that liturgical action, and secondly, what type of ecclesiology do we evidence when we make reference to the priest's "back to the people"?

First of all, when celebrating ad orientam (the proper liturgical phrase for "back to the people"), the intent has nothing to do with shunning the people or trying to exclude them from the sacred mysteries. Rather, the emphasis is on the mystery itself: the true presence of Christ in the sacrament and the sacramental offering of Christ to the Father as our sacrifice for sins. This is why the emphasis is on the altar and not on the people.

Secondly, when we say a priest celebrates "back to the people", we betray a flawed understanding of liturgy and ecclesiology. Unless there is some specific reason why a person should turn their back to something, we always automatically refer to what they are facing, not what they are facing away from. For example, when a person goes to a stadium to watch a baseball game, you do not say, "Look at all those people with their backs to the stands!" We recognize that in such an event there is a focal point, and that everybody is primarily facing the focal point; only in a secondary and remote sense could you refer to them as facing away from the stands and the other spectators. Furthermore, knowing that everybody is there to withness the game, would it not be silly if the spectators had their backs to the game and instead of participated in watching the game and cheering on the players decided to simply turn their backs on them and narrate the game to the rest of the crowd? Would anybody be content with that?

Likewise, when we say "back to the people", we are making the people the focal point of the Mass. The priest's location becomes defined in reference to where the people happen to be. But since when did the people become the center of the Mass? Oh wait, I know! Around 1965-1969. But the people are most certainly not the center of the Mass.

The Church has a maxim, lex orandi, lex crededni. I think we should adopt a corrolary: via orationis, via cogitationis: The way we speak will be the way we think. Remember Orwell's 1984; to alter people's minds it was necessary only to alter the vocabulary that they used, and that was enough to hedge in people's mental faculties. In the Orwellian sense, I guess you could say that referring to ad orientam as "back to the people" is double-ungood. Actually celebrating the Mass this way is double-plus-ungood.

Therefore, I am going to inaugurate a change in our vocabulary to help put us back on the right track. From this day forward, I am going to refer to versus populum ("facing the people") Masses as Masses said with the priest's "back to God." Perhaps if this picks up, it will help bring home where the true emphasis ought to lay, and why saying "back to the people" is so double-plus-ungood.