For all of you who are watching this election closely, this note is for all of you. Tagged are those who take classes with me and those that might just care. If I didn't tag you then I am sorry but I was not really thinking about tagging but what I was going to write. Anyways, here it is.
On the first Tuesday in November 2008 there will be a General election to decide one of the most historic campaigns ever. and before the night is out, Barack Hussein (Steve for all you Al Smithies) Obama will be the next president of the United States. And with a huge majority of the vote.
Yes, I just said that. Now before the liberals start cheering and the conservatives explode, I want to give my reasons for this prediction.
Over the course of the past 2-3 years the democrats have been fighting tooth and nail to decide who is going to lead them to victory. It was only decided a scant 3 months ago who this would be. In the meantime, this has allowed Obama to gain a foundation of supporters who have been combating Clintonites from the start. These people are not going to change their vote, and are so deep in the Obama trench that it will take much more than a Joe Biden gaffe to get them out.
The Clinton supporters are bitter. They fought for 3 years to get their woman nominated only to fall by a hair. But they are not just bitter against Obama, they are even more bitter against the party that has been in control of the white house for 8 years. The GOP has foiled them for too long in their view and it is more important to them to vote for a Democrat than to allow another GOP president into DC. Some People say that Palin is a woman therefore Clinton supporters will vote for her. I am sorry for this language but besides their sexual organs, there is no similarity between Clinton and Palin. 99% of Clintonites will not change their vote. Those that do do not really believe in what they stand for.
The majority of voters, over 50% of them, are Independents. Come November, they will vote for Barack Obama. Why? I think because of several reasons:
1) He is a better speaker. Damn that man can speak. JFK effect on Nixon. Answers may be above his pay grade but when he sticks to his script (like Palin) he can be as persuasive as Morgan Freeman (anyone who has no idea hat I am talking about can go flush themselves down a toilet). The uninformed voter will see an amazing speaker not a man who has done very little. It simply will not matter.
2) He is Black. Yes I just said that. No one wants to look racist. Moderate Liberals who lean towards McCain will vote for Obama come November simply because he is black. The fear of being perceived as Racist is a huge. Being PC for many people is being normal. Voting for an old white guy will be un-PC. and yes, the vast majority of Black people will vote Obama. They already tend to vote liberal, so the fact that he is black will simply serve to reinforce their votes and pick up an even larger percentage of voters. Case and Point: Colin Powell has endorsed Obama.
3) No more Bush. Obama's campaign has nailed McCain on one talking point. He will be a continuation of Bush policies. As true or untrue as this may be, people buy it. They think of Bush policy and what do they see? They see Iraq, Patriot act, the recent stock market meltdown roller coaster and Scooter Libby. They see corruption and skyrocketing prices. And because of reason #1, when Barack Obama says that Bush=McCain, people believe him.
Some political theorists point to the Bradley effect. I seriously doubt that people will say that they are voting for Obama but then will turn and vote for McCain. I do think that many older people will do so, but not the youth. I am predicting that huge numbers of youth will turn out to vote this year and that there is where the difference will be made.
This recent economic crisis has also changed votes. Whether or not it is Bush's fault is beside the point. Reason #3 dictates what some people will do about it. It may be that it is unconstitutional money creation that has caused this, it may be over regulation, it maybe the free market; the fact is, people do not care what caused it. People care about WHO caused it. and while it may be that it was liberal policies, no one really know for sure. By the time the truth comes out, no one care. Obama will have 4 years to get ride of the blame or to direct it into a total of 8 years as president.
Personally, I am voting for McCain. It is because I am pro-life and wish to have a pro-life candidate that will place strict constitutionalists in the SC. But because my vote only counts for .0000000000375% of the vote, I doubt that it will make the difference needed to make sure the alternative is kept out.
Comment please if you wish, but please do not flame me nor each other.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Why some "pro-life" people support Embryonic Stem Cell Reasearch
by Richard Stith J.D
In December of 2005 an op-ed piece by sociologist Dalton Conley appeared in the New York Times, stating that “most Americans... see a fetus as an individual under construction.” This widespread vision of the embryo and fetus as “under construction” is the key to understanding why good people may find pro-life arguments to be absurd or otherwise non-rational, e.g., religious, particularly with regard to embryonic stem cell research.
The construction idea also may explain how Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been able to support both the right to life from the moment of conception and embryonic stem cell research.
Just think of something being constructed, such as a house, or a scholarly article – or take a car on an assembly line. When is a car first there? At what point in the assembly line would we first say, “There’s a car”? Some of us would no doubt go with appearance, saying that there is a car as soon as the body is fairly complete (in analogy to the fetus at 10 weeks or so). I suppose that most of us would look for something functional. We would say that there is a car only after a motor is in place (in analogy to quickening). Others might wait for the wheels (in analogy to viability) or even the windshield wipers (so that it’s viable even in the rain). And a few might say, “It’s not a car until it rolls out onto the street” (in analogy to birth). There would be many differing opinions.
However, one thing upon which we’ll probably all agree is this: Nobody is going to say that the car is there at the very beginning of the assembly line, when the first screw or rivet is put in or when two pieces of metal are first welded together. (You can see how little I know about car manufacturing.) Two pieces of metal fastened together don’t match up to anybody’s idea of a car.
I think that this is exactly the way that many people see the embryo, like the car-to-be at the very beginning of the construction process. In the first stages of construction you don’t have a house, you don’t have a car, you don’t have a human individual yet. You don’t ever have what you’re making when you’ve just started making it. This does not mean that our “constructionist” friends are anti-life. They may believe that a baby should have absolute protection once it has been fully fabricated. But until that point, for them, abortion just isn’t murder.
What happens when a constructionist hears a pro-lifer argue that a human embryo has the same right to life as any other human being? Journalist Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his utter bewilderment: “I cannot share, or even fathom, [the pro-life] conviction that a microscopic dot – as oblivious as a rock, more primitive than a worm – has the same rights as anyone reading this article.”
There’s a deep truth at the base of Kinsley's puzzlement. Nothing can be a certain kind of thing until it possesses the form of that kind of thing, and the form of a thing under construction just plain isn’t there at the beginning of the construction process. It isn’t there because that form is being gradually imposed from the outside and the persons or forces doing the construction have not yet been able to shape the raw material into what it will eventually be.
There is a special relevance of the construction idea to the embryonic stem cell debate. Conley admits there can be a peculiar, lesser sort of dignity even in a work-in-progress. For example, if we thought God were engaged in fabricating a new Eve, out of a bone and a breath, we wouldn't want to destroy His work-in-progress, simply out of respect for Him. Again, many of us would think a Corvette-To-Be pretty special even on the assembly line, something not lightly to be destroyed, because it's on the way to becoming something that we really care about. But if the auto factory shuts down early on, those two pieces of joined metal on the assembly line are not "to be" anything; they're just recyclable waste. Likewise, an embryo conceived outside the womb – with no plans to implant it so that it could be born – is not on its way "to be" anything. Thus it has little or no work-in-progress dignity, and work-in-progress type dignity is all that it can ever have for Conley and those who agree with his construction model of gestation.
So there is a reason that people like John McCain, and some others who are strongly opposed to abortion, even in early pregnancy, could feel free to vote for embryonic stem cell research funding. They could think that an intrauterine fetus or embryo is a great divine or human work in progress, and thus shouldn’t be aborted, even when just recently conceived, but only because it is under construction. Since the thousands of frozen, test-tube-generated embryos that scientists want to use for experiments are not under construction, are just scrap left over from IVF treatments, they can be recycled without a qualm.
Development as an alternative to construction
Despite the great explanatory power of Conley’s construction metaphor for an understanding of contemporary life-issue debates, it is radically misleading concerning the nature of gestation. It is in fact not true that the bodies of living creatures are constructed, by God or by anyone else. There is no outside builder or maker. Life is not made. Life develops.
In construction, the form defining the entity being built arrives only slowly, as it is added from the outside. In development, the form defining the growing life (that which a major Christian tradition calls its “soul”) is within it from the beginning. If Corvette production is cancelled, the initial two pieces of metal stuck together can become the starting point for something else, perhaps another kind of car, or maybe a washing machine. But even if you take a human embryo out of the womb, you can never get it to develop into a puppy or a guppy.
Living organisms are not formed or defined from the outside. They define and form themselves. The form or nature of a living being is already there from the beginning, in its activated genes, and that form begins to manifest itself from the very first moment of its existence, in self-directed epigenetic interaction with its environment. Embryos don’t need to be molded into a type of being. They already are a definite kind of being.
This idea of development – as the continual presence but gradual appearance of a being – lies deep within us. Here is a non-biological example of development. Suppose that we are back in the pre-digital photo days and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable – let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, and so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example parallel to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I just say blithely, “You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.” Wouldn’t you think that I was the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.
Why do we sometimes find the constructionist view plausible, while at other times the more accurate developmental view seems to make more sense? The constructionist view is intuitively appealing, I think, whenever the future is shut out of our minds, even if we are using the scientifically correct term “development.” Whenever the embryo or fetus is described in terms simply of its current appearance, it is easy to fall into constructionism. For example, if a snapshot is taken in which an embryo looks like just a ball of cells, its dynamic self-direction is obscured. It seems inert. Since an entity that had merely embryonic characteristics as its natural end state would indeed not qualify as a human being, it is easy to imagine that the entity in the snapshot is not human. Scientific knowledge of its inner activity may not be enough to overcome this impression, for it is hard to recognize a form still hidden from view.
However, when we look backwards in time or otherwise have in mind a living entity’s final concrete form, development becomes intuitively compelling. Knowing that the developing Polaroid picture would have been of a jaguar helped us to see that calling it a “brown smudge” was inadequate. If we somehow had an old photo taken of our friend Jim just after he had been conceived, and was thus just a little ball, we'd have no trouble saying, "Look, Jim. That's you!" Thus the most arresting way to put the developmental case against embryo-destructive research would be something like this: “Each of your friends was once an embryo. Each embryo destroyed could one day have been your friend.”
Deconstruction and the disabled
The construction vs. development clash may also help us to clarify our mutual misunderstandings regarding euthanasia. If a Corvette is gradually deconstructed (dismantled), it eventually ceases to merit the appellation “car”. If you were given a disassembled Corvette body, without the motor or wheels, would you feel that you had been given a “car”? What if you got only a chunk of the frame? True, Corvette-lovers might still have a certain reverence for that body, or even for a piece of the frame, because of what it used to be part of, so that wantonly trashing it (for no good purpose) could still seem to them wrong. But it wouldn’t seem nearly as bad as destroying a whole car. (Remember, there’s nothing wrong with this thinking with regard to artificial creations like cars. Once the pieces necessary to form a car are gone, that form itself is gone and so the car is truly gone.)
Life, however, is different. The form (nature, design) of a living creature both precedes and perdures independently of its appearance and function. That activated form is imbedded within a living being’s every part and every cell (in its active DNA). As long as a disabled creature remains anything – that is, as long as it holds itself together in some way, rather than just becoming a collection of non-integrated objects – that is, as long as it remains alive – it remains what it always was from the beginning of its development.
Indeed, our photo analogy fails fully to capture the nature of life. A photo does not hold itself together. If you scratch it after it has been developed, it won’t even try to repair itself. Like a constructed entity, it is merely an assemblage of parts, without a continuing inner force maintaining its form. Since a living creature is not only an assemblage of parts, it actually cannot be merely constructed. Both ancient and modern constructionists switch (and have to switch) to the developmental understanding at some point during gestation, or soon thereafter, in order to account for the fact that living human beings do have this active inner unifying form, until the day they die.
A deconstructionist might forget this truth and claim misleadingly that someone in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” is no longer a human being, having lost forever what we think special about our species. But in point of fact such a person never loses the unifying force that strives to express her humanity, until the moment she dies. Every part of her wasted body, even her very genes, actively, though in vain, strives to repair her injuries and to express her natural reason, will, and connection to those whom she has loved. She never becomes something else, such as a vegetable. That’s why her condition is tragic, because she has a human nature that is utterly frustrated. We don’t find real vegetables tragic (“Poor little heads of lettuce. Look how they’re just vegetating!”) because they are able to exhibit their inner design or nature.
As a result of accident or of age, many of us will become no longer capable (in this world) of expressing well, or expressing at all, the speech, reason, choice, and love for which we remain formed. Our humanity will have once more become partially hidden, as it was when we had just been conceived, but it will still be there.
In December of 2005 an op-ed piece by sociologist Dalton Conley appeared in the New York Times, stating that “most Americans... see a fetus as an individual under construction.” This widespread vision of the embryo and fetus as “under construction” is the key to understanding why good people may find pro-life arguments to be absurd or otherwise non-rational, e.g., religious, particularly with regard to embryonic stem cell research.
The construction idea also may explain how Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been able to support both the right to life from the moment of conception and embryonic stem cell research.
Just think of something being constructed, such as a house, or a scholarly article – or take a car on an assembly line. When is a car first there? At what point in the assembly line would we first say, “There’s a car”? Some of us would no doubt go with appearance, saying that there is a car as soon as the body is fairly complete (in analogy to the fetus at 10 weeks or so). I suppose that most of us would look for something functional. We would say that there is a car only after a motor is in place (in analogy to quickening). Others might wait for the wheels (in analogy to viability) or even the windshield wipers (so that it’s viable even in the rain). And a few might say, “It’s not a car until it rolls out onto the street” (in analogy to birth). There would be many differing opinions.
However, one thing upon which we’ll probably all agree is this: Nobody is going to say that the car is there at the very beginning of the assembly line, when the first screw or rivet is put in or when two pieces of metal are first welded together. (You can see how little I know about car manufacturing.) Two pieces of metal fastened together don’t match up to anybody’s idea of a car.
I think that this is exactly the way that many people see the embryo, like the car-to-be at the very beginning of the construction process. In the first stages of construction you don’t have a house, you don’t have a car, you don’t have a human individual yet. You don’t ever have what you’re making when you’ve just started making it. This does not mean that our “constructionist” friends are anti-life. They may believe that a baby should have absolute protection once it has been fully fabricated. But until that point, for them, abortion just isn’t murder.
What happens when a constructionist hears a pro-lifer argue that a human embryo has the same right to life as any other human being? Journalist Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his utter bewilderment: “I cannot share, or even fathom, [the pro-life] conviction that a microscopic dot – as oblivious as a rock, more primitive than a worm – has the same rights as anyone reading this article.”
There’s a deep truth at the base of Kinsley's puzzlement. Nothing can be a certain kind of thing until it possesses the form of that kind of thing, and the form of a thing under construction just plain isn’t there at the beginning of the construction process. It isn’t there because that form is being gradually imposed from the outside and the persons or forces doing the construction have not yet been able to shape the raw material into what it will eventually be.
There is a special relevance of the construction idea to the embryonic stem cell debate. Conley admits there can be a peculiar, lesser sort of dignity even in a work-in-progress. For example, if we thought God were engaged in fabricating a new Eve, out of a bone and a breath, we wouldn't want to destroy His work-in-progress, simply out of respect for Him. Again, many of us would think a Corvette-To-Be pretty special even on the assembly line, something not lightly to be destroyed, because it's on the way to becoming something that we really care about. But if the auto factory shuts down early on, those two pieces of joined metal on the assembly line are not "to be" anything; they're just recyclable waste. Likewise, an embryo conceived outside the womb – with no plans to implant it so that it could be born – is not on its way "to be" anything. Thus it has little or no work-in-progress dignity, and work-in-progress type dignity is all that it can ever have for Conley and those who agree with his construction model of gestation.
So there is a reason that people like John McCain, and some others who are strongly opposed to abortion, even in early pregnancy, could feel free to vote for embryonic stem cell research funding. They could think that an intrauterine fetus or embryo is a great divine or human work in progress, and thus shouldn’t be aborted, even when just recently conceived, but only because it is under construction. Since the thousands of frozen, test-tube-generated embryos that scientists want to use for experiments are not under construction, are just scrap left over from IVF treatments, they can be recycled without a qualm.
Development as an alternative to construction
Despite the great explanatory power of Conley’s construction metaphor for an understanding of contemporary life-issue debates, it is radically misleading concerning the nature of gestation. It is in fact not true that the bodies of living creatures are constructed, by God or by anyone else. There is no outside builder or maker. Life is not made. Life develops.
In construction, the form defining the entity being built arrives only slowly, as it is added from the outside. In development, the form defining the growing life (that which a major Christian tradition calls its “soul”) is within it from the beginning. If Corvette production is cancelled, the initial two pieces of metal stuck together can become the starting point for something else, perhaps another kind of car, or maybe a washing machine. But even if you take a human embryo out of the womb, you can never get it to develop into a puppy or a guppy.
Living organisms are not formed or defined from the outside. They define and form themselves. The form or nature of a living being is already there from the beginning, in its activated genes, and that form begins to manifest itself from the very first moment of its existence, in self-directed epigenetic interaction with its environment. Embryos don’t need to be molded into a type of being. They already are a definite kind of being.
This idea of development – as the continual presence but gradual appearance of a being – lies deep within us. Here is a non-biological example of development. Suppose that we are back in the pre-digital photo days and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable – let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, and so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example parallel to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I just say blithely, “You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.” Wouldn’t you think that I was the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.
Why do we sometimes find the constructionist view plausible, while at other times the more accurate developmental view seems to make more sense? The constructionist view is intuitively appealing, I think, whenever the future is shut out of our minds, even if we are using the scientifically correct term “development.” Whenever the embryo or fetus is described in terms simply of its current appearance, it is easy to fall into constructionism. For example, if a snapshot is taken in which an embryo looks like just a ball of cells, its dynamic self-direction is obscured. It seems inert. Since an entity that had merely embryonic characteristics as its natural end state would indeed not qualify as a human being, it is easy to imagine that the entity in the snapshot is not human. Scientific knowledge of its inner activity may not be enough to overcome this impression, for it is hard to recognize a form still hidden from view.
However, when we look backwards in time or otherwise have in mind a living entity’s final concrete form, development becomes intuitively compelling. Knowing that the developing Polaroid picture would have been of a jaguar helped us to see that calling it a “brown smudge” was inadequate. If we somehow had an old photo taken of our friend Jim just after he had been conceived, and was thus just a little ball, we'd have no trouble saying, "Look, Jim. That's you!" Thus the most arresting way to put the developmental case against embryo-destructive research would be something like this: “Each of your friends was once an embryo. Each embryo destroyed could one day have been your friend.”
Deconstruction and the disabled
The construction vs. development clash may also help us to clarify our mutual misunderstandings regarding euthanasia. If a Corvette is gradually deconstructed (dismantled), it eventually ceases to merit the appellation “car”. If you were given a disassembled Corvette body, without the motor or wheels, would you feel that you had been given a “car”? What if you got only a chunk of the frame? True, Corvette-lovers might still have a certain reverence for that body, or even for a piece of the frame, because of what it used to be part of, so that wantonly trashing it (for no good purpose) could still seem to them wrong. But it wouldn’t seem nearly as bad as destroying a whole car. (Remember, there’s nothing wrong with this thinking with regard to artificial creations like cars. Once the pieces necessary to form a car are gone, that form itself is gone and so the car is truly gone.)
Life, however, is different. The form (nature, design) of a living creature both precedes and perdures independently of its appearance and function. That activated form is imbedded within a living being’s every part and every cell (in its active DNA). As long as a disabled creature remains anything – that is, as long as it holds itself together in some way, rather than just becoming a collection of non-integrated objects – that is, as long as it remains alive – it remains what it always was from the beginning of its development.
Indeed, our photo analogy fails fully to capture the nature of life. A photo does not hold itself together. If you scratch it after it has been developed, it won’t even try to repair itself. Like a constructed entity, it is merely an assemblage of parts, without a continuing inner force maintaining its form. Since a living creature is not only an assemblage of parts, it actually cannot be merely constructed. Both ancient and modern constructionists switch (and have to switch) to the developmental understanding at some point during gestation, or soon thereafter, in order to account for the fact that living human beings do have this active inner unifying form, until the day they die.
A deconstructionist might forget this truth and claim misleadingly that someone in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” is no longer a human being, having lost forever what we think special about our species. But in point of fact such a person never loses the unifying force that strives to express her humanity, until the moment she dies. Every part of her wasted body, even her very genes, actively, though in vain, strives to repair her injuries and to express her natural reason, will, and connection to those whom she has loved. She never becomes something else, such as a vegetable. That’s why her condition is tragic, because she has a human nature that is utterly frustrated. We don’t find real vegetables tragic (“Poor little heads of lettuce. Look how they’re just vegetating!”) because they are able to exhibit their inner design or nature.
As a result of accident or of age, many of us will become no longer capable (in this world) of expressing well, or expressing at all, the speech, reason, choice, and love for which we remain formed. Our humanity will have once more become partially hidden, as it was when we had just been conceived, but it will still be there.
The Problem of Pro-Life
Being pro-Life. It is almost corny to mention for those Catholics who think of their faith as more than just what your mom and dad's Sunday practices. Its a tag line that defines the rhetoric of the modern day republican conventions. Among conservatives, its the rallying call used to bring the southern bible belt to bear.
But what does his mean? Does it mean anti-abortion?
No. Being pro-life is more than being against abortion. It includes being agaisnt the death penalty, being against war, being against Embryonic stem cell research. But this is not what the modern pro-life movement espouses. It is solely focused on he prevention and illegalization of abortion.
Do not get me wrong. I support the movement. But it has been corrupted by the ideals of the Republican party, especially in terms of the death penalty and war. This is the problem.
Until the movement pushes itself into those issues, organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood will undermine the popular opinions on the issue.
But what does his mean? Does it mean anti-abortion?
No. Being pro-life is more than being against abortion. It includes being agaisnt the death penalty, being against war, being against Embryonic stem cell research. But this is not what the modern pro-life movement espouses. It is solely focused on he prevention and illegalization of abortion.
Do not get me wrong. I support the movement. But it has been corrupted by the ideals of the Republican party, especially in terms of the death penalty and war. This is the problem.
Until the movement pushes itself into those issues, organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood will undermine the popular opinions on the issue.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Protestants and their Silly Videos
SO I have been watching James the preacher lately to see what these evangelicals do hile they are not yelling at a bunch of sheep. And lo and behold, they....Yell at people on the street and all over the internet. James the Preacher is an offensive, self styled "preacher". He uses offensive imagery to justify his often baseless thoughts as to why he thinks Catholics are wrong. He even goes to say that Catholics were founded by the Devil! An extreme position and one that he offers no backing.
I always find it strange to see this claim. I mean was it not Jesus who founded the Church? Was it not Peter who became the first pope? Did not Peter nominate another? When the Church grew larger, was it not one of the popes that called for an election? Do not the greatest Christian thinkers support the pope up until the schism and then the reformation?
More to come ....
I always find it strange to see this claim. I mean was it not Jesus who founded the Church? Was it not Peter who became the first pope? Did not Peter nominate another? When the Church grew larger, was it not one of the popes that called for an election? Do not the greatest Christian thinkers support the pope up until the schism and then the reformation?
More to come ....
Monday, April 14, 2008
Chivalry
What is chivalry? Immediately, most people think of the middle ages or a knight in shining armor saving the damsel in distress. For me, I see a system by which men can relate to women. This system is what is supposed to be proper for a man's conduct to women but also to everyone else. How does this practice translate into today's society?
Saturday, April 12, 2008
On the Papal Visit
Here I am, going back home. I am coming back home to see the Pope visit the United States. I cannot say how excited I am, I am buying a new memory card for my camera and am trying o prepare myself for the ordeal. Until very recently, I had no way of entering the stadium, but now, because of my dear mother's help, I have acquired a ticket at the low cost of handing out newspapers. I really good deal if you ask me.
So what is the catch to all this? I am missing a week of classes. Not the best option but I'll take it. I will be striving hard this week to stay on top of homework. I really want to well.
So what is the catch to all this? I am missing a week of classes. Not the best option but I'll take it. I will be striving hard this week to stay on top of homework. I really want to well.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Why I am Pro-Life
Most people like to call themselves pro-life for a whole slew of reasons. My reasons are my own and for most people, I do try to keep religion out of this even though I am a devout Catholic.
I am of the opinion that a cell is alive. What makes it human, I think, is its capacity to grow normally into a mature human being. That is why skin cells are not human life, because they will not grow into a mature human being. But what does this say about the embryo? This means that I do consider it to be alive because aside from its age, it is the same as you or me.
A lot of people like to think of it as just a mass of tissue connected to the Woman's body. Some even think that to be pregnant is punishment. Both of these views are irrational. Becoming pregnant in any way is not a punishment: it is a biological function for reproduction. Yes yes, it is a beautiful gift from God, but we are not looking at this from a religious perspective. As a biological function it makes sense that to propagate the species, the child must be allowed to live. Survival of the fittest and all that. It is observable that no animal willingly kills its unborn unless it is forced to (pregnant monkey on hot plate experiments). In fact its first instinct is to protect that still unborn at its own risk. Therefore it is against all biological reasons to have an abortion or even contraception.
I am of the opinion that a cell is alive. What makes it human, I think, is its capacity to grow normally into a mature human being. That is why skin cells are not human life, because they will not grow into a mature human being. But what does this say about the embryo? This means that I do consider it to be alive because aside from its age, it is the same as you or me.
A lot of people like to think of it as just a mass of tissue connected to the Woman's body. Some even think that to be pregnant is punishment. Both of these views are irrational. Becoming pregnant in any way is not a punishment: it is a biological function for reproduction. Yes yes, it is a beautiful gift from God, but we are not looking at this from a religious perspective. As a biological function it makes sense that to propagate the species, the child must be allowed to live. Survival of the fittest and all that. It is observable that no animal willingly kills its unborn unless it is forced to (pregnant monkey on hot plate experiments). In fact its first instinct is to protect that still unborn at its own risk. Therefore it is against all biological reasons to have an abortion or even contraception.
On Bad Bishops
Why is it there are bishops who allow liturgical abuse and even heresy to go on in their dioceses? The answer my friends is simple: because they do not know that it is wrong. We have a number of bishops out there in the world who have no idea that what they are teaching is heretical. Take the bishop of northern Florida who instead of celebrating a mass at Ave Maria so that they could have mass in their chapel, he decides to go to "Circus Day" at a his cathedral, a day in which to honor those in the circus, the priest dresses up not in his traditional garments but in Clown uniform, the bishop decided to include himself in this practice.
Such things cannot go on ignored much longer. I see a steady decline in the church as people will begin to see thet their church no longer is the truth, they will seek out a church that does but upon failure they will despair.
Such things cannot go on ignored much longer. I see a steady decline in the church as people will begin to see thet their church no longer is the truth, they will seek out a church that does but upon failure they will despair.
On Charisma and the Church
Today I am in a lounge, waiting for the speaker to begin. The talk today is about The Catholic Charismatic renewal. Let me talk about what is my opinion of the Charismatics. I do think that they concentrate on community rather than the sacrifice of the mass. This leads to liturgical abuses which then leads to heresy. I have met many a charismatic who wants to bless me. This is something that is not allowed. So why is a prevalent in most Charismatics? Why do they not abide by the liturgical standards? Time to find out:
Talking about Faith: faith that the lord will do something. As if we were all mystics. She says we have the gift of healing. Last time I checked, thats not in the church. She seems to think that the Holy Spirit moves her to do anything. The gift of the Holy Spirit includes according to her, the gift of discernment and of tongues is a common thing.
I would be very cautious when approaching this group. Personally their dependence on feelings guided by the Holy Spirit through their lives seems like it might substitute feeling for actual faith. For me, it seems like for anyone that is well educated in their faith, the charismatic movement ceases to be of any importance. I wish the Pope would address this issue more head on because I really am confused about it.
Talking about Faith: faith that the lord will do something. As if we were all mystics. She says we have the gift of healing. Last time I checked, thats not in the church. She seems to think that the Holy Spirit moves her to do anything. The gift of the Holy Spirit includes according to her, the gift of discernment and of tongues is a common thing.
I would be very cautious when approaching this group. Personally their dependence on feelings guided by the Holy Spirit through their lives seems like it might substitute feeling for actual faith. For me, it seems like for anyone that is well educated in their faith, the charismatic movement ceases to be of any importance. I wish the Pope would address this issue more head on because I really am confused about it.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Dr. Hollander
I got to say. This man is amazing. But after another amazing lecture, I am still very satisfied. Even though I managed to stump him by accident by asking what I thought was an interesting question. I asked him where the description for God comes from. He thought I was referring to the description of the light. I was really referring to the Trinity and he even asked me what I thought it was.
Hollander: Pagan Prescence in the Christian Poem
I cannot tell you how excited I am to go hear Dr. Hollander speak. Right now I am sitting on a bench waiting for the lecture hall doors to open. His lecture yesterday was amazing and today I am feeling just as excited. Especially because I just did terribly on a Philosophy exam. I unfortunately had to take the exam two days early. Because I am over worked, I was not prepared for it. I am a little distraught over it but even more so over my Psychology exam which I just got my grade back for it : C+... I am extremely disappointed by that grade. I went into that exam thinking I would get a B or better especially after I finished it. But this is not to be.
So right now I really want nothing more than to hear Dr. Hollander talk. His brilliance will surely make me smile again. we shall see.
So right now I really want nothing more than to hear Dr. Hollander talk. His brilliance will surely make me smile again. we shall see.
On Dante: Divine Inspiration or Incredible Imagination?
I have a Professor here at UD that likes to tell us that he thinks Dante is a divinely inspired poet. What does this mean? He seriously thinks that Dante had some form of vision from God and that here are great elements of truth in what he writes. At the same time, this same professor thinks that Dante is wrong about homosexuals, Mohammad and Pagans' position in the Inferno. This duality of beliefs is startling. How he can maintain the position that there is divine inspiration yet at the same time disagree with the information presented? Answer: he cannot.
Dante was either inspired or not. Either he had divine assistance or not. Dante claims over and over again implicitly that he has divine inspiration but never actually says it. Why? because he knows he will be labeled as a heretic by the Church. If he had a divine Mandate he would not be afraid to say it explicitly. This is just a fact.
My belief is that of Dr. Hollander's: I believe that Dante has elaborately created an idea of the afterlife by creating an amazing synthesis of the classical poets: Horace, Ovid, Virgil; and the theologians: Aquinas and Augustine. It is a brilliant creation but an artificial one. It is not real. The truth found in it is a truth that has already been expressed by the theologians. Therefore Dante is a Theologos Poeta.
Dante was either inspired or not. Either he had divine assistance or not. Dante claims over and over again implicitly that he has divine inspiration but never actually says it. Why? because he knows he will be labeled as a heretic by the Church. If he had a divine Mandate he would not be afraid to say it explicitly. This is just a fact.
My belief is that of Dr. Hollander's: I believe that Dante has elaborately created an idea of the afterlife by creating an amazing synthesis of the classical poets: Horace, Ovid, Virgil; and the theologians: Aquinas and Augustine. It is a brilliant creation but an artificial one. It is not real. The truth found in it is a truth that has already been expressed by the theologians. Therefore Dante is a Theologos Poeta.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Liturgical Abuses at UD: Part 2
I seem to be receiving the same kind of comments in response to the note I published a few days ago. The argument seems to be that as long as the mass is not invalid, I should not complain about the status quo. There is also the question that my issues with the mass are simply style changes. In this note I will try to define what is an abuse and what is a stylistic change. Then, I will try to show how these things are very important to the maintaining the Catholic Character of UD and why we should care about them.
First: Defining a Abuses: Before getting into the specific abuses, it is important
to understand the rules for celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. These rules are officially called rubrics. These rubrics are contained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), and many clarifications have been made in other documents such as Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (Inaestimabile Donum).
The most serious type of abuse makes the Mass "invalid." For a Mass to be invalid, the Consecration of the Eucharist does not occur. Going to an invalid Mass is like not attending Mass at all since Jesus is not physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation. This I believe is NOT occurring at UD.
The lesser abuse is called "illicit." These type of abuses are less serious and do not cause the failure of the Consecration of the Eucharist. There are a wide variety of these types of abuses which detract from the holiness and reverence in the Mass. However, an illicit Mass can still be a valid (as opposed to invalid) Mass. This does not mean that they should just be ignored.
Because I am sure that the mass is valid I will not discuss the Invalidating abuses. Instead I will dedicate the majority of this note to showing what these abuses are. Not all of them pertain to Father JD though many do.
First, let me say that the Church has already said experimentation in the liturgy is gravely wrong in Vatican II's Liturgicae Instauraciones:
Every time a priest commits some form of abuse, the believers are being insulted. What exactly falls under the category of illicit (NOT INVALID) abuses will be dealt with now.
This clearly demonstrates that there are illicit abuses here at UD. Abuses detract from the character of UD's catholicity. One should never simply look past an abuse, that opens the door for simply more abuses. This is my main issue here at UD. This is not being nitpicky. Nitpicky would be me commenting on the fact that the church is ugly, the stations are on the floor, the cross behind the altar is foul, the vestments worn by Fr. D are not all there, and that he does not wear a biretta, the music is not always very good or that the sanctuary is not set up in a very reverent manner (but my perception). Those are all things that deal with style and have no grounds for being abuse. Abuse is an insult to the believer, and they corrupt the true nature of the mass. As a good friend said: ignoring abuses opens the door to heresy. And that is the last thing a Catholic University wants.
Many responses have been something like, "pull the trunk out of your own eye before you pull the splinter out of your brother's". My response to this is thus: I recognize that I am not perfect. But i is in my right and it in fact is my duty for standing up for the truth, especially when I have at least some documentation to somewhat back my arguments up. I sincerely believe that improving the mass here at UD will improve my spiritual life.
I would also like to recognize and apologize for the phrase "violently repressed". It does is characterize what goes on here and I said it because I was not very happy at the time that I wrote it. I think i can rephrase it to "discouraged". At least for the Sunday morning masses and some daily masses this applies.
It is not my intention nor my desire for JD to retire from his duties as Chaplain as the University. What I seek is positive change. I seek a good, liturgically correct mass. I believe that this will reflect well on the University as a whole and will improve its Catholic character.
On my next note I will address the All saints day homily as well as the mass being simply a community meal. I will also address the role of community in the church and the lay person. Message me for specific questions and as usual, reply civilly.
First: Defining a Abuses: Before getting into the specific abuses, it is important
to understand the rules for celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. These rules are officially called rubrics. These rubrics are contained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), and many clarifications have been made in other documents such as Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (Inaestimabile Donum).
The most serious type of abuse makes the Mass "invalid." For a Mass to be invalid, the Consecration of the Eucharist does not occur. Going to an invalid Mass is like not attending Mass at all since Jesus is not physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation. This I believe is NOT occurring at UD.
The lesser abuse is called "illicit." These type of abuses are less serious and do not cause the failure of the Consecration of the Eucharist. There are a wide variety of these types of abuses which detract from the holiness and reverence in the Mass. However, an illicit Mass can still be a valid (as opposed to invalid) Mass. This does not mean that they should just be ignored.
Because I am sure that the mass is valid I will not discuss the Invalidating abuses. Instead I will dedicate the majority of this note to showing what these abuses are. Not all of them pertain to Father JD though many do.
First, let me say that the Church has already said experimentation in the liturgy is gravely wrong in Vatican II's Liturgicae Instauraciones:
"The effectiveness of liturgy does not lie in experimenting with rites and altering them over and over, nor in a continuous reductionism, but solely in entering more deeply into the word of God and the mystery being celebrated. It is the presence of these two that authenticates the Church's rites, not what some priest decides, indulging his own preferences."
"Keep in mind, then, that the private recasting of ritual introduced by an individual priest insults the dignity of the believer and lays the way open to individual and idiosyncratic forms in celebrations that are in fact the property of the whole Church."
Every time a priest commits some form of abuse, the believers are being insulted. What exactly falls under the category of illicit (NOT INVALID) abuses will be dealt with now.
- Changing the Prescribed Texts of the Mass; Ad Libbing; Inclusive Language
All the texts of the Mass - prayers, responses, Epistles, Gospel - must be according to the norms approved by the Church. Under no circumstances can anything be changed outside of the rules laid down by the Church. This is clearly stated, even in Vatican II! Inclusivist language falls under this. Many times has the Church re affirmed its position that The first person of the holy Trinity is reffered to as the Father. Some texts from various documents:Sacrosanctum Concilium #22: (1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. (2) In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories. (3) Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Inaestimabile Donum #5. "Only the Eucharistic Prayers included in the Roman Missal or those that the Apostolic See has by law admitted, in the manner and within the limits laid down by the Holy See, are to be used. To modify the Eucharistic Prayers approved by the Church or to adopt others privately composed is a most serious abuse." - Armies of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist; "Eucharistic Ministers:
The term "Eucharistic Minister" is actually not a valid definition within the Church. The official term is extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. Commonly practiced today is the excessive use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist when there is no need. Now while I know that I will lose this one because only the rector can decide what is and what is not appropriate for the mass, it is my personal opinion that 6-8 is too many and that it should be 2-4 max. Another Vatican Document:Inaestimabile Donum #10. "The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. [Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction "Immensae caritatis," no. 1.] Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity."
Once again this is my personal opinion but frankly it will not be much of an issue I believe. - Priest and Laity Mixing Roles
This is a biggie. The mixing of roles between priests and laity has degraded so far that a specific document was promulgated to address this issue. It is titled Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest (Ecclesiae de Mysterio). Vatican II has always clearly defined the role of priest and laity.Sacrosanctum Concilium #28. "In liturgical celebrations each person, minister, or layman who has an office to perform, should carry out all and only those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the norms of the liturgy."
Canon 907: In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the Eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.
Here at UD, an example of this would be a lay person returning the ciborium to the tabernacle if there are left over hosts. According to GIRM 163, the priest himself needs to do this.
This clearly demonstrates that there are illicit abuses here at UD. Abuses detract from the character of UD's catholicity. One should never simply look past an abuse, that opens the door for simply more abuses. This is my main issue here at UD. This is not being nitpicky. Nitpicky would be me commenting on the fact that the church is ugly, the stations are on the floor, the cross behind the altar is foul, the vestments worn by Fr. D are not all there, and that he does not wear a biretta, the music is not always very good or that the sanctuary is not set up in a very reverent manner (but my perception). Those are all things that deal with style and have no grounds for being abuse. Abuse is an insult to the believer, and they corrupt the true nature of the mass. As a good friend said: ignoring abuses opens the door to heresy. And that is the last thing a Catholic University wants.
Many responses have been something like, "pull the trunk out of your own eye before you pull the splinter out of your brother's". My response to this is thus: I recognize that I am not perfect. But i is in my right and it in fact is my duty for standing up for the truth, especially when I have at least some documentation to somewhat back my arguments up. I sincerely believe that improving the mass here at UD will improve my spiritual life.
I would also like to recognize and apologize for the phrase "violently repressed". It does is characterize what goes on here and I said it because I was not very happy at the time that I wrote it. I think i can rephrase it to "discouraged". At least for the Sunday morning masses and some daily masses this applies.
It is not my intention nor my desire for JD to retire from his duties as Chaplain as the University. What I seek is positive change. I seek a good, liturgically correct mass. I believe that this will reflect well on the University as a whole and will improve its Catholic character.
On my next note I will address the All saints day homily as well as the mass being simply a community meal. I will also address the role of community in the church and the lay person. Message me for specific questions and as usual, reply civilly.
Liturgical Abuses at UD
Apparently it seems like the opinion of those who believe in a liturgically correct mass is shunned and violently repressed here at UD. People often say how much they love being Catholic or that UD is very Catholic. However, I contend that UD like every single other catholic university save Christendom College has a long way to go before they can be truly recognized as being really Catholic. I was told today that we all want perfection on Campus in the Catholic Character of UD. I gave my opinion in a rather carefree manner and was punched in he shoulder because I expressed a specific view (see below) which was contrary to the aggressor's views.
"But Dani! We have the Seminary, and the priory and an amazing campus ministry!"
I have heard this one a lot. Yes we have a seminary and a Priory. They are very well and good but they truly do not define the Catholicity of UD. Campus Ministry does. And while I like the majority of the people in Campus ministry, I do find disagreement with the head chaplain, Fr. JD. (side note: this is why I was punched: I said that Fr. JD needs to be replaced to improve the Catholic Character of UD. Needless to say, the aggressor likes JD a lot and and vehemently disagreed with me and did not wish for me to share my views on this matter in public or anywhere else. This has provoked me to write this note.)
At this point, I expect many of you to stop reading this, shake your head and leave an explosive comment. You may even blow up at me in person later this week. That is your issue. I expect to catch flak for this. You can tell me it is not my place to criticize clergy. This may be true, for some I may be undermining the establishment of the priesthood. For others, it is their opinion that none should ever criticize a priest. I expect they said the same thing for Fr. Maciel. Do not know who he is? Look him up. Read anything by the New Oxford Review about him. Criticism is good when it is necessary. If you do not want to see my personal critical opinion of Fr. JD, then stop reading now because you will get angry.
Fr. JD is a nice man. In fact, he is very nice. His character is not flawed in his interactions with other people. He is sociable and easy to talk to. These are qualities of a good campus ministry chaplain. Of this I have no problem, in fact I do praise him for it. However, what does bug me is his celebration of the mass, or rather, the specific liturgical changes as well as a few other things. As for the liturgical changes, I cite his frequent replacing of the word "Father" from the liturgy and replacing it with "One" or less often, "Creator". On occasion he will remove entire parts from the liturgy to avoid saying "Father". If you pay attention during mass they you have probably already noticed this. In the liturgy it says before the Lord's Prayer "Jesus taught us to call God Our Father...".
Minor right? perhaps. perhaps not. I do not know the reasons why but I wish i did. Other things that bug me are : the informality of the mass it feels like a dinner, not the sacrifice of the Crucifixion relived or the solemnity of the Last Supper. It seems to lack respect. Why do I say this? Because: the manner of the sign of peace destroys any reverence for the Eucharist that was there before especially with the manner in which Fr. JD repeats himself by waving frantically at everyone, pointing at some and making the peace sign repeatedly. And yes he is repeating himself because he says :"Peace be with you" we respond "and also with you" then he may say (is not required to but does anyways, nothing wrong with that) "you may now offer one another the sign of peace". So him doing Jazz hands and pointing like our President and making the peace sign is extra. And it breaks from the solemnity of the mass. From the USCCB General Instruction of the Roman Missal(GIRM): The Rite of Peace
His homilies are occasionally also a topic of frustration to me. For example, on All Saints day, or at least on the Vigil mass, his homily consisted of this message "Celebrate yourselves! You are saints because you are part of the communion of Saints!"
I am not dead. I am not canonized. I am not a saint. A theologian told me this bordered on Heresy. But I will reserve judgment seeing as he was not there.
What else? Minor things perhaps. He wears tennis shoes to mass and his vestments do not cover them up. He never seems to be wearing his cassock and maybe I'm just missing it. He does not genuflect after the Consecration. I am pretty sure that the proper order of the mass calls for genuflection to the holy presence of the Eucharist. And it does: once again with the GIRM: Genuflections and Bows
If he is unable to genuflect, then this only shows another problem.
According to the Diocese of Dallas, retirement age for priests is 75. I believe I have heard that Fr. JD is over that point. His health interfering in the sacrifice of the Mass does not speak well of UD. HIs health should not interfere with his work in Campus ministry.
Other things. I have heard rumors (and just this and pending verification) that Fr. JD denied a senior gift of across to place atop the Church because he "wanted people to look harder for the church".
Personal problem. When I was in my parish at home, I would receive communion while on my knees at my parish. I was very much offended when I was told by Father to get up. This was at the first mass I attended here at UD. This made me very unhappy.(side note: the proper method according to GIRM or receiving is standing)
Right now I am very tired and find myself unable to finish this note. I will return and finish it next week. However I will leave you all with this. If you disagree with me and my argument I will ask you to please not overreact to me. I know there si a strong following here at UD in support of Fr. JD. This note is not to defraud JD but to simply point out some things that I myself am worried about. If you do not like the fact that I am publishing his publicly then I am afraid to say it but too bad. It have every right to publish this and my argument wherever I wish and Take note that this document in no way attacks the character of Fr. JD but merely some of his practices. I hold a deep seated respect to all those who are clergy and Fr. JD is included. However I strongly believe is standing up for what is right and the discovery of the truth. I will not stop until I know the truth. Feel free to comment but please be civil.
"But Dani! We have the Seminary, and the priory and an amazing campus ministry!"
I have heard this one a lot. Yes we have a seminary and a Priory. They are very well and good but they truly do not define the Catholicity of UD. Campus Ministry does. And while I like the majority of the people in Campus ministry, I do find disagreement with the head chaplain, Fr. JD. (side note: this is why I was punched: I said that Fr. JD needs to be replaced to improve the Catholic Character of UD. Needless to say, the aggressor likes JD a lot and and vehemently disagreed with me and did not wish for me to share my views on this matter in public or anywhere else. This has provoked me to write this note.)
At this point, I expect many of you to stop reading this, shake your head and leave an explosive comment. You may even blow up at me in person later this week. That is your issue. I expect to catch flak for this. You can tell me it is not my place to criticize clergy. This may be true, for some I may be undermining the establishment of the priesthood. For others, it is their opinion that none should ever criticize a priest. I expect they said the same thing for Fr. Maciel. Do not know who he is? Look him up. Read anything by the New Oxford Review about him. Criticism is good when it is necessary. If you do not want to see my personal critical opinion of Fr. JD, then stop reading now because you will get angry.
Fr. JD is a nice man. In fact, he is very nice. His character is not flawed in his interactions with other people. He is sociable and easy to talk to. These are qualities of a good campus ministry chaplain. Of this I have no problem, in fact I do praise him for it. However, what does bug me is his celebration of the mass, or rather, the specific liturgical changes as well as a few other things. As for the liturgical changes, I cite his frequent replacing of the word "Father" from the liturgy and replacing it with "One" or less often, "Creator". On occasion he will remove entire parts from the liturgy to avoid saying "Father". If you pay attention during mass they you have probably already noticed this. In the liturgy it says before the Lord's Prayer "Jesus taught us to call God Our Father...".
Minor right? perhaps. perhaps not. I do not know the reasons why but I wish i did. Other things that bug me are : the informality of the mass it feels like a dinner, not the sacrifice of the Crucifixion relived or the solemnity of the Last Supper. It seems to lack respect. Why do I say this? Because: the manner of the sign of peace destroys any reverence for the Eucharist that was there before especially with the manner in which Fr. JD repeats himself by waving frantically at everyone, pointing at some and making the peace sign repeatedly. And yes he is repeating himself because he says :"Peace be with you" we respond "and also with you" then he may say (is not required to but does anyways, nothing wrong with that) "you may now offer one another the sign of peace". So him doing Jazz hands and pointing like our President and making the peace sign is extra. And it breaks from the solemnity of the mass. From the USCCB General Instruction of the Roman Missal(GIRM): The Rite of Peace
82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.
As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace ***only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner***.
His homilies are occasionally also a topic of frustration to me. For example, on All Saints day, or at least on the Vigil mass, his homily consisted of this message "Celebrate yourselves! You are saints because you are part of the communion of Saints!"
- I am not a saint because a saint is someone who is either canonized by the Church or someone who is in Heaven. Seeing as I fulfill neither of those I cannot be a saint. The definition of the Princeton Dictionary:a person who has died and has been declared a saint by canonization.
- All saints day is: Solemnity celebrated on the first of November. It is instituted to honor all the saints, known and unknown, and, according to Urban IV, to supply any deficiencies in the faithful's celebration of saints' feasts during the year. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia).
I am not dead. I am not canonized. I am not a saint. A theologian told me this bordered on Heresy. But I will reserve judgment seeing as he was not there.
What else? Minor things perhaps. He wears tennis shoes to mass and his vestments do not cover them up. He never seems to be wearing his cassock and maybe I'm just missing it. He does not genuflect after the Consecration. I am pretty sure that the proper order of the mass calls for genuflection to the holy presence of the Eucharist. And it does: once again with the GIRM: Genuflections and Bows
274. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.
During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (cf. above, nos. 210-251).
If he is unable to genuflect, then this only shows another problem.
According to the Diocese of Dallas, retirement age for priests is 75. I believe I have heard that Fr. JD is over that point. His health interfering in the sacrifice of the Mass does not speak well of UD. HIs health should not interfere with his work in Campus ministry.
Other things. I have heard rumors (and just this and pending verification) that Fr. JD denied a senior gift of across to place atop the Church because he "wanted people to look harder for the church".
Personal problem. When I was in my parish at home, I would receive communion while on my knees at my parish. I was very much offended when I was told by Father to get up. This was at the first mass I attended here at UD. This made me very unhappy.(side note: the proper method according to GIRM or receiving is standing)
Right now I am very tired and find myself unable to finish this note. I will return and finish it next week. However I will leave you all with this. If you disagree with me and my argument I will ask you to please not overreact to me. I know there si a strong following here at UD in support of Fr. JD. This note is not to defraud JD but to simply point out some things that I myself am worried about. If you do not like the fact that I am publishing his publicly then I am afraid to say it but too bad. It have every right to publish this and my argument wherever I wish and Take note that this document in no way attacks the character of Fr. JD but merely some of his practices. I hold a deep seated respect to all those who are clergy and Fr. JD is included. However I strongly believe is standing up for what is right and the discovery of the truth. I will not stop until I know the truth. Feel free to comment but please be civil.
ur head and leave an explosive comment. You may even blow up at me in person later this week. That is your issue. I expect to catch flak for this. You can tell me it is not my place to criticize clergy. This may be true, for some I may be undermining the establishment of the priesthood. For others, it is their opinion that none should ever criticize a priest. I expect they said the same thing for Fr. Maciel. Do not know who he is? Look him up. Read anything by the New Oxford Review about him. Criticism is good when it is necessary. If you do not want to see my personal critical opinion of Fr. JD, then stop reading now because you will get angry.
Fr. JD is a nice man. In fact, he is very nice. His character is not flawed in his interactions with other people. He is sociable and easy to talk to. These are qualities of a good campus ministry chaplain. Of this I have no problem, in fact I do praise him for it. However, what does bug me is his celebration of the mass, or rather, the specific liturgical changes as well as a few other things. As for the liturgical changes, I cite his frequent replacing of the word "Father" from the liturgy and replacing it with "One" or less often, "Creator". On occasion he will remove entire parts from the liturgy to avoid saying "Father". If you pay attention during mass they you have probably already noticed this. In the liturgy it says before the Lord's Prayer "Jesus taught us to call God Our Father...".
Minor right? perhaps. perhaps not. I do not know the reasons why but I wish i did. Other things that bug me are : the informality of the mass it feels like a dinner, not the sacrifice of the Crucifixion relived or the solemnity of the Last Supper. It seems to lack respect. Why do I say this? Because: the manner of the sign of peace destroys any reverence for the Eucharist that was there before especially with the manner in which Fr. JD repeats himself by waving frantically at everyone, pointing at some and making the peace sign repeatedly. And yes he is repeating himself because he says :"Peace be with you" we respond "and also with you" then he may say (is not required to but does anyways, nothing wrong with that) "you may now offer one another the sign of peace". So him doing Jazz hands and pointing like our President and making the peace sign is extra. And it breaks from the solemnity of the mass. From the USCCB General Instruction of the Roman Missal(GIRM): The Rite of Peace
His homilies are occasionally also a topic of frustration to me. For example, on All Saints day, or at least on the Vigil mass, his homily consisted of this message "Celebrate yourselves! You are saints because you are part of the communion of Saints!"
I am not dead. I am not canonized. I am not a saint. A theologian told me this bordered on Heresy. But I will reserve judgment seeing as he was not there.
What else? Minor things perhaps. He wears tennis shoes to mass and his vestments do not cover them up. He never seems to be wearing his cassock and maybe I'm just missing it. He does not genuflect after the Consecration. I am pretty sure that the proper order of the mass calls for genuflection to the holy presence of the Eucharist. And it does: once again with the GIRM: Genuflections and Bows
If he is unable to genuflect, then this only shows another problem.
According to the Diocese of Dallas, retirement age for priests is 75. I believe I have heard that Fr. JD is over that point. His health interfering in the sacrifice of the Mass does not speak well of UD. HIs health should not interfere with his work in Campus ministry.
Other things. I have heard rumors (and just this and pending verification) that Fr. JD denied a senior gift of across to place atop the Church because he "wanted people to look harder for the church".
Personal problem. When I was in my parish at home, I would receive communion while on my knees at my parish. I was very much offended when I was told by Father to get up. This was at the first mass I attended here at UD. This made me very unhappy.(side note: the proper method according to GIRM or receiving is standing) However, according to recent documents a priest cannot deny communion to one who kneels.
Right now I am very tired and find myself unable to finish this note. I will return and finish it next week. However I will leave you all with this. If you disagree with me and my argument I will ask you to please not overreact to me. I know there si a strong following here at UD in support of Fr. JD. This note is not to defraud JD but to simply point out some things that I myself am worried about. If you do not like the fact that I am publishing his publicly then I am afraid to say it but too bad. It have every right to publish this and my argument wherever I wish and Take note that this document in no way attacks the character of Fr. JD but merely some of his practices. I hold a deep seated respect to all those who are clergy and Fr. JD is included. However I strongly believe is standing up for what is right and the discovery of the truth. I will not stop until I know the truth. Feel free to comment but please be civil.
Fr. JD is a nice man. In fact, he is very nice. His character is not flawed in his interactions with other people. He is sociable and easy to talk to. These are qualities of a good campus ministry chaplain. Of this I have no problem, in fact I do praise him for it. However, what does bug me is his celebration of the mass, or rather, the specific liturgical changes as well as a few other things. As for the liturgical changes, I cite his frequent replacing of the word "Father" from the liturgy and replacing it with "One" or less often, "Creator". On occasion he will remove entire parts from the liturgy to avoid saying "Father". If you pay attention during mass they you have probably already noticed this. In the liturgy it says before the Lord's Prayer "Jesus taught us to call God Our Father...".
Minor right? perhaps. perhaps not. I do not know the reasons why but I wish i did. Other things that bug me are : the informality of the mass it feels like a dinner, not the sacrifice of the Crucifixion relived or the solemnity of the Last Supper. It seems to lack respect. Why do I say this? Because: the manner of the sign of peace destroys any reverence for the Eucharist that was there before especially with the manner in which Fr. JD repeats himself by waving frantically at everyone, pointing at some and making the peace sign repeatedly. And yes he is repeating himself because he says :"Peace be with you" we respond "and also with you" then he may say (is not required to but does anyways, nothing wrong with that) "you may now offer one another the sign of peace". So him doing Jazz hands and pointing like our President and making the peace sign is extra. And it breaks from the solemnity of the mass. From the USCCB General Instruction of the Roman Missal(GIRM): The Rite of Peace
82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.
As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace ***only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner***.
His homilies are occasionally also a topic of frustration to me. For example, on All Saints day, or at least on the Vigil mass, his homily consisted of this message "Celebrate yourselves! You are saints because you are part of the communion of Saints!"
- I am not a saint because a saint is someone who is either canonized by the Church or someone who is in Heaven. Seeing as I fulfill neither of those I cannot be a saint. The definition of the Princeton Dictionary:a person who has died and has been declared a saint by canonization.
- All saints day is: Solemnity celebrated on the first of November. It is instituted to honor all the saints, known and unknown, and, according to Urban IV, to supply any deficiencies in the faithful's celebration of saints' feasts during the year. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia).
I am not dead. I am not canonized. I am not a saint. A theologian told me this bordered on Heresy. But I will reserve judgment seeing as he was not there.
What else? Minor things perhaps. He wears tennis shoes to mass and his vestments do not cover them up. He never seems to be wearing his cassock and maybe I'm just missing it. He does not genuflect after the Consecration. I am pretty sure that the proper order of the mass calls for genuflection to the holy presence of the Eucharist. And it does: once again with the GIRM: Genuflections and Bows
274. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.
During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (cf. above, nos. 210-251).
If he is unable to genuflect, then this only shows another problem.
According to the Diocese of Dallas, retirement age for priests is 75. I believe I have heard that Fr. JD is over that point. His health interfering in the sacrifice of the Mass does not speak well of UD. HIs health should not interfere with his work in Campus ministry.
Other things. I have heard rumors (and just this and pending verification) that Fr. JD denied a senior gift of across to place atop the Church because he "wanted people to look harder for the church".
Personal problem. When I was in my parish at home, I would receive communion while on my knees at my parish. I was very much offended when I was told by Father to get up. This was at the first mass I attended here at UD. This made me very unhappy.(side note: the proper method according to GIRM or receiving is standing) However, according to recent documents a priest cannot deny communion to one who kneels.
Right now I am very tired and find myself unable to finish this note. I will return and finish it next week. However I will leave you all with this. If you disagree with me and my argument I will ask you to please not overreact to me. I know there si a strong following here at UD in support of Fr. JD. This note is not to defraud JD but to simply point out some things that I myself am worried about. If you do not like the fact that I am publishing his publicly then I am afraid to say it but too bad. It have every right to publish this and my argument wherever I wish and Take note that this document in no way attacks the character of Fr. JD but merely some of his practices. I hold a deep seated respect to all those who are clergy and Fr. JD is included. However I strongly believe is standing up for what is right and the discovery of the truth. I will not stop until I know the truth. Feel free to comment but please be civil.
Liturgical Abuses
I think I will also occasionally touch upon this issue of mine. Last semester I wrote two essays criticizing the local pastor of my church. They both created an unexpected stir on campus and I got over 100 comments combined on both. I was shocked at the level of response and I think that if I were to post again it would certainly create more stir. However I think for the time being I will repost my essays here. Then I will touch upon the intricacies as needed.
My first
Hello cruel world! I am not going to lie I am very excited about this. I want to write often. By often, I mean that I wish to write weekly. While I know that I will most likely never get to actually have a serious audience, I love writing. This is my feeble attempt to preach my life to you and thereby force my beliefs onto you. Well... Maybe not force. I will be letting you know how I feel on anything that comes to mind.
To introduce my neurotic lonely self: I am a student at the University of Dallas. I am younger than you and think I am smarter. I know more random trivia than John Carpenter (see?). I am a liberal moderate. I am also pro-life. I love so many things, from Politics to video games, and from Psychology to religion. I am Catholic for all you bashers who care.
To introduce my neurotic lonely self: I am a student at the University of Dallas. I am younger than you and think I am smarter. I know more random trivia than John Carpenter (see?). I am a liberal moderate. I am also pro-life. I love so many things, from Politics to video games, and from Psychology to religion. I am Catholic for all you bashers who care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)