I took the chance today to query a priest over at St. Michael's who is usually pretty on moral issues and spiritual advice over what he thought I should do in regards to Ebay's permitting hosts to be sold. He had at least heard of the story, which made it easier to explain, though he was unaware of the details.

His general take was that if it I felt like it, I should leave, but that he didn't think leaving was necessitated unless the situation gets worse. It was a fair exchange of questions and answers from both of us, so I'm pretty sure he gave the best advice he could. I'll put myself into pray and see mode on the matter for the time being. Is there a moral theologian in the house?

Sidenote - Despite the fact that this priest always says the Friday 5:15 Mass (I suspect because the Novena to the Sacred Heart precedes it), and several others I attend, and hears a fair number of my confessions, I still don't know for sure what his name is. Best guess at this time is Fr. Staebell, although that's not saying much, considering I had him pegged as this priest for most of the last year.

Posted by Justice at 4:57 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

With my family name not being particularly common in the United States, it's sometimes fun to run an internet search on it and see what turns up, since most are in Germany. Among some highlights of people with the same surname...

- A family woodworking business, which incidentally sells blanks for Catholic religious figures
- Someone with the same first name as one of my sisters (now to see if either of them inquire about it...)
- At least one owns a Ford dealership
- One is involved in Ohio politics
- One is a very successful real estate agent
- One seems to own a winery, another seems to be a beer brewer
- A whole host of neat sounding first names, including Marius, Eugen, Rainer, and, in a nod to the oldest ancestor known in the family tree, Melchior.

Posted by Justice at 11:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

SoDakMonk, who has been an enjoyable blog for me to read, has closed up shop for now, apparently because some people were offended. I'm not sure how that happened, but I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Posted by Justice at 9:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Right after the University checks the apartment complex's fire alarm system, it's not expected that the darn thing's going to malfunction. But, sure enough, last night, when the alarm went off, caused again by the 3rd floor residents on the opposite side of the building, we noticed that the university's police were slow in arriving.

After about 15 minutes, someone finally rang them up to ask if they knew. After it was confirmed that they didn't, it took about another 10 minutes to get someone over here to shut it off. In all that time, nobody knew the alarm was going off - not the complex office, the police, or the fire department. Call me cynical, but that doesn't give me the greatest confidence that they'd manage to show up in time if a real fire happened.

The University is really lucky that this wasn't a real fire in the middle of the night, since this has happened so frequently that many don't bother to evacuate anymore and can sleep right through the alarm. As a case in point, only 4 of 24 from my half were outside last night, and I find it hard to believe that none of the other 20 were not home at 8:30 at night, though it apparently didn't provoke the police to make a search of the place.

Posted by Justice at 11:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

This is a helpful suggestion to those in a class in which everyone is presenting on largely the same topic. I came to class with a rough, though serviceable presentation of my paper on the problem of evil, despite the paper's not yet being finished. And, as happened in the previous class, every person who went had me rewording, reordering, and revising the material. It's a good thing I avoided being called today, because by the end, I would have been hard pressed to give a coherent presentation.

Posted by Justice at 11:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

My body's going to be protesting again this week through the last stretch of my undergraduate career to get everything done. It would help if I didn't procrastinate so much, but for reasons unknown, I have almost always operated on a just in time method, which is the uncanny property of knowing just how much procrastination to get away with without missing deadlines.

The remaining schedule for the next 7 days until the last exam is as follows:

Tuesday - Presentation on the problem of evil, Latin HW
Wednesday - Latin Vocab Quiz
Thursday - Problem of evil paper due, Finance HW due
Friday - Accounting project due, Latin Grammar Quiz
Saturday - Open
Sunday - Possibly an all day outing?
Monday - Voting HW due

Priority wise, the Finance HW takes absolute priority starting tomorrow at roughly 11 am, since it is the only assignment which cannot be accepted late, and which is at least a quarter of the course grade. After that, the accounting project will come, followed by the paper, and then added on to all of that, I have 3 assignments I have to grade and dish back by Monday, since it was a case of 3 of them coming within 9 days.

I expect sanity to return somewhere on Saturday afternoon. Blogging will probably be light until then.

Anyway, 20 days left until commencement, 17 days until the last exam. I am SO counting the days left now.

Posted by Justice at 11:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Last week, to fit in a mega vocabulary test of some 200 words, our Latin instructor decided to make the weekly grammar test a take-home. So instead of it being the nice 50-minute exam it normally is, it ended up being a translation of a fairly long passage which is utterly confusing in terms of its language. The instructor's actually e-mailed a little help file with it, since this is definitely not what we're used to in a grammar test.

I'll be spending the rest of the night attempting to put together a coherent translation of Cicero's thoughts on war. The selection, if anyone is interested, is from De Officiis, 1.11.34-36 and De Re Publica 3.23.34-35, with modifications.

Posted by Justice at 10:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I have some more thoughts to flesh out the initial post about Ebay's permitting the sale of consecrated hosts.

The central problem of a company like Ebay is that it's essentially operating as an open-air market, and instead of charging rental fees, is just charging people per item. Consecrated hosts present a unique problem because there is absolutely no way to tell them apart from an ordinary wafer, unless God happens to miraculously confirm the Host's authenticity. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any policy against selling the ordinary wafers, especially since I have seen those for sale online before by legitimate entities.

What this means, of course, is that someone could peddle a regular wafer as a consecrated one, and scam believers or satanists out of loads of money - although in the case of genuine satanists, I definitely wouldn't want to be in the scammer's shoes. But the opposite is also true - true Hosts can be passed off as ordinary wafers, and again, no one would know. And that poses a problem, because the sale of ordinary ones is perfectly legitimate, as far as I can see. If Ebay chooses to disallow sales of consecrated hosts, but allows ordinary ones to be sold, all the seller has to do is use obfuscating language, or code, to indicate the true nature of the real thing.

Frankly, I doubt satanists would go through so public a medium as Ebay for their purposes, especially since that involves a lot of cost, and revealing a name or address connected with them. I imagine they find it far easier to frequent parishes to snag the genuine article for free and also completely anonymously. Jesus is Jesus - anyone who thinks there's more value attached to a host consecrated by a certain person or in a certain place doesn't really believe it is what it is.

So what's the correct response toward Ebay? I'm not sure, really. Certainly, complaints asking them to reconsider are a good step. But I really don't know if leaving them is useful, since essentially they're middle men in the transaction. I know that, particularly with money, my employer (state of New York), bank, and credit card providers are all involved in immoral transactions. New York funds all sorts of it, and I'm pretty sure both the bank and the credit card company deal in such illicit things too, making at least a nominal profit for being middlemen. But it would be rather difficult to manage by quitting, not using a bank, and not using a card.

In this case, I personally think the best action here would be to make any listings of hosts as difficult to complete as possible. After all, if Ebay is constantly getting insane bid amounts, problems with non-paying bidders, and boatloads of complaints, it may eventually decide it's not worth it to hold to their current position.

Via the complaint line, the more the better is the way to go. I prefer physical letters over e-mail, particularly when they're being sent once or twice a week at least. If doing e-mail, send them one per day. Or, for the more industrious, calling can work too. End idea is still the same - be a pest in their side.

Addendum: One other point is that, unless one has been an active seller, Ebay is not going to miss that business all that much. Buyers only generate fees indirectly, and the loss of users who never sell costs them about 5% of whatever margin those users outbid others for any given item.

Frankly, I prefer raising hell to boycotts, but that's just me. Picketing their corporate headquarters is likely to be more effective in my opinion. Boycottebay has more information along those lines.

Posted by Justice at 11:35 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

If anyone knows how to get the nofollow or the MT-Bayesian Movable Type plugins to function, please e-mail me, as the system is having errors running both. I'm absolutely lost trying to debug the error code.

Posted by Justice at 6:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Twice now in the last several weeks, allegedly consecrated hosts have been offered for sale on Ebay. Fortunately, the first seller was talked out of the sale by the local diocese, and the second was pulled because the bid price rose too high.

Ebay, however, says they will continue to permit hosts to be sold on their website, as a religious collectible. That says something pretty bad about the company when it considers God a collectible which is a-ok for trading, but has a problem selling human body parts in most cases. Exactly what does Ebay think consecrated hosts are but human flesh?

There's a protest list located over here, which I recommend signing. And, of course, closing Ebay and Paypal accounts is a useful way to protest the company's decision.

Via Philothea Rose.

Posted by Justice at 10:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The class on voting, that is. General rule of thumb - if there are two candidates, things are great. If there are more than two, things get messy - particularly with plurality votes.

So thus it came about that today's test on voting, which had 6 questions, was too long for us to finish in time. A brief rundown of the questions:

- Given the (alpha, beta, d) cyclic coordinates, generate the original voter profile. Also, given a profile, generate the (alpha, beta, d) cyclic coordinates.

- Given the alpha and beta portion of a cyclic coordinate, find the set of all d values that resulted in the election result being transitive (a big problem with voting is that many procedures are vulnerable to intransitivity, or cycles).

- Given the plurality election outcome and anti-plurality election outcome of some profile, find the election outcome of the Borda Count.

- Explain the Irrelevancy of Independent Alternatives principle, and then find an example of the Borda Count procedure which violates the principle. IIA, as it's called, simply says that the pairwise ranking of a pair of candidates is based solely on the relative pairwise rankings given by the candidates.

- Given the election outcome of the plurality procedure, describe all possible anti-plurality results which could occur.

- Using the s=1/5 procedure (top ranked candidate out of three gets 4 votes, second ranked gets 1, last gets none), find a voter profile such that c1 beats c2 pairwise with 70% of the vote, but the outcome of the procedure has c2 preferred over c1. Then find a voter profile such that, given type 3 voters constitute no more than 40% of the vote, has c2 ranked above c1.

Posted by Justice at 11:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Given a lot of people are somewhat upset at Pope Benedict XVI's election yesteday - which is heavily understating things - I came up for some lines regarding the election which might make for a witty response.

- Better a panzerkardinal for a Pope than a pansy.

- Who would you rather have guard your house? A rottweiler or a French poodle?

- Jesus was also a hard-liner.

Take the list light-heartedly, since that's its intent. More suggestions are welcome, and additions may be made.

Posted by Justice at 3:03 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Although Pope Benedict XVI is already 78 upon election, it's not unprecedented in recent history to elect a man of that age to the office. Blessed Pope John XXIII was almost 77 when he was named to the office, and even though he reigned a bit less than 5 years, the second Vatican Council was a major accomplishment in that brief time. He is also not the oldest man ever elected, as that honor, as far as I know, belongs to Clement X, appointed in 1670 just short of his 80th birthday.

On the other hand, we also have Pope Leo XIII, who closed out the 19th century, who lived to the age of 93, which Ratzinger is yet 15 years away from. So those hoping this might be a short pontificate might be in for headaches, particularly since the new Pope is in pretty good health, and medical technology's a heck of a lot better than in Leo XIII's day and especially Clement X's.

Posted by Justice at 10:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Since we have a Pope now, I've switched the color scheme back to something more Easter themed. Unfortunately, Lord Kyl does not have a golden cross background, so I've improvised it by modifying his white template quite a bit in Photoshop. He does have green, white, purple, maroon, black, blue, and red cross backgrounds however, if anyone is looking for them, in addition to the dragon background seen in use on the sidepanel.

At the moment, I haven't come up with a suitable replacement for the text background, but I should find one sometime soon.

Posted by Justice at 5:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I honestly never thought Cardinal Ratzinger would get the nod, but apparently the good Cardinals were too smart to listen to the bawlings in the media against him in the last few weeks. I like the choice, although I do feel for a man who's been wanting to retire for several years.

In a way, it's kind of an extension of a quote I heard from him some years back on how he'd submitted his resignation from his CDF post several times, with the idea that he could go back and write some books. Each time, Pope John Paul II declined, asking him to stay on. Ratzinger said something to the effect that when he looked at the suffering pope, he couldn't leave. And now, he gets to continue the work of his good friend, a burden I'm sure he would have rather done without.

God bless you, holy father. May your reign be long and prosperous for the Church.

Posted by Justice at 1:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I'm not quite sure what exactly Marty Minto said that allegedly got him fired from a Christian radio station in Pittsburgh, but it sounds much more like poor delivery on his part than censorship or stifling of the gospel.

Often forgotten in the realm of evangelization is that delivery is very important to the goal of spreading the gospel. It's true that if Jesus were around today, he'd be a lightning rod of politically incorrect statements. But, just as in ancient times, the outcry would only be against what He said, not how. In the Gospels, we are frequently presented with Christ rebuking errant positions, but never in a way that anyone could find fault with.

That in mind, Marty Minto could easily have answered this question without offending anybody when asked whether he thought the Pope was in heaven. From the Protestant point of view, all he had to say was "I don't know" and explain that he had no way of knowing, since it's a personal matter. Instead, by putting out the born again angle, he essentially does pass judgment on all those born before Christ, who would have had no possibility of meeting the criterion. That is definitely going to offend, particularly those of us who don't think God would create people who never had any chance at a fate other than Hell (this is distinct from believing no one goes there).

This is largely a language problem within Christianity, since Catholics don't use that terminology, though spiritual renewal is part and parcel of its theology. We speak of Baptism as leaving an indelible mark on the soul, besides marking the initial restoration of sanctifying grace in the soul - a rebirth, in other words, although we also believe one can kill that grace later by sin.

The larger problem with Minto's statement is that it presents a viewpoint which a lot of people have problems with - namely, the fate of those who existed prior to Christ. They can't be born again, as it wasn't available, and a lot of people, myself included, have trouble believing that is the sole criterion. After all, the holy prophets of old did not have the option, nor did any of the people living prior to Christ. The concept of a just God does not square well with God creating people who never had any chance of salvation. This is one of the greatest problems born-again Christianity has trying to get its message out - it sounds very much like the elitist Gnostic groups of the ante-Nicean period who claimed salvation was only open to certain elect, and they happened to be it.

In specific response to some of LaShawn Barber's comments on this, there are a few observations:

- She is quite right in claiming Christ is the sole possessor of the power to forgive sins, along with all other divine powers. However, she does not seem to believe that Christ is capable of delegating them to mankind, as was God's way throughout the history of the Bible. In the Gospels, we see the apostles being given the power to chase out devils, a power which only God has, and also the power to baptize. It isn't exactly a big stretch to think that God can also give the power to forgive sins to them as well. Real Presence is also not a big stretch, particularly considering John 6.

- When God gave his only Son to the world, it was not for just a part of it, but the entire world. This easily follows from God's justice, since all men have been given a chance to accept the love shown by Christ. This is how people are damned, by rejecting Christ's offering, in which case, their sins are not forgiven by the sacrifice, since, as it was under the Jewish system for expiating sins, the sinner's responsibility to put his sins on the lamb so that they would be forgiven. It's not damnation by predetermination. God does know who the elect are, of course, but the choice is left to us whether or not to be one of that number.

- The Church was not exactly burning people left and right for what it considered heretical ideas. Inquisition records show that torture itself was rarely employed, death very infrequently. It certainly did try to weed out false ideas, as it had ample experience with them cropping up consistently throughout its history. It remains one of the greatest weaknesses of Protestantism that it has no mechanism to correct doctrinal errors, which is why the vast majority have lost their way in this last century.

It's depressing to count the number of people I know who say they believe Christ died for them, yet take an approach to faith and the Bible which essentially makes them Popes unto themselves, thus giving rise to all sorts of contradictions like Christians supporting things like abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, or any other of a host of moral no-nos.

Posted by Justice at 11:07 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Now that we're actually in the middle of the conclave, I felt like blogging some thoughts about the various sedevacantist groups out there - the ones who feel the Holy See has been lacking a true Pope since the death of Pius XII (or other dates, depending on the group).

I really feel sorry for these people, because I think they will end up waiting forever for a true Pope to emerge, not realizing that God has kept right on filling the office. It's somewhat comparable to the Jewish people waiting for a messiah which, as far as Christians are concerned, has already come.

I don't know how they believe the see will be occupied now, since Church law at the time demanded that the Cardinals elect him - and as it's going on 50 years since Pius XII's death, it's unlikely there are any left. That's left them open to following a multitude of anti-popes. The one time I debated this question, I never was able to get an answer to the question of where the Church's authority happened to be located at the present time.

A general complaint against the Novus Ordo Mass, that it was promulgated in violation of the papal bull "Quo Primum" which established the Missale Romanum's original typical edition following the Tridentine Council. That argument might have some merit, except it runs into problems due to Vatican I's declarations concerning the Roman Pontiff's authority and infallibility.

Infallibility does not apply to Quo Primum, since it is not intended to apply to all the faithful, just those of the Latin Rite, who would actually be using the new missal. A second problem, relating to Vatican I for this position, is that it flatly declared that the Pope has full supreme authority over the Church, and is not bound by any ecclesiastical decisions or usages, and can also act on his own independent of any consultation of the Church or the bishops. [Reference is pages 285-86 in Ludwig Ott's Dogmas of the Catholic Church.]

It would be nice to see sanity return to the sedevacantist crowd, and have them end this squabble over Vatican II. Their presence would do much to help restore the Church, if they weren't so busy putting all their energy into ripping it due to its problems and declaring it anathema. The Church has looked pretty ragged before guys, the early sixteenth century is a major case in point.

Sooner or later, if they don't come back, the same fate is liable to happen to them as has happened to most of the Protestants, and that's the corruption of doctrine due to private interpretation. The only major difference is they have a far larger body of text to privately interpret, multiplying the potential for error.

Posted by Justice at 8:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Right now, the Cardinals are finishing up a Solemn Mass for the Election of the Roman Pontiff, and later today will begin the conclave to choose a successor to Pope John Paul II. May the Holy Spirit lead them to the decision God wants, and may it not take longer than Saturday for them to decide.

Posted by Justice at 4:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Today is the Fourth Sunday of Easter, also known as Good Shepherd Sunday, a time to pray for vocations, as requested by the late Pope. The priest really rose to the occasion in his homily today, putting out what might have been the first cogent argument I've heard from the pulpit about why God has permitted the recent decline in the number of priests relative to parishoners.

His focus was on how, despite the decline in the number of priests in these last several years, the Church has not spun into chaos, but has rather seen a lot of its ordinary functions taken up by the permanent deacons and laity, while being shifted off of the priests. In his opinion, this has done much to free up priests to focus on their sacramental duties. Although he didn't make the connection explicitly, a new springtime of vocations under such circumstances would be wonderful for reinvigorating the sacramental life of the Church.

It was nice for once to hear something about vocations which was not pessimistic in the least.

Posted by Justice at 11:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Today's trip to Barnes and Noble highlights why I don't expect major chain booksellers to see much, if any, of my business in the future. Their "discount" card program costs $25 per year for a mere 10% savings. I may buy a lot of books, but $250 just to break even is asking a lot when they don't even carry the sort of books I want to buy (Catholics looking for good Catholic books have probably long since figured out that they need to use catalogs or online booksellers like these folks, or hope there's a Catholic bookstore in the area). Meanwhile, Amazon almost always offers 10% to 33% off the books I'm looking for, plus they usually have most of what I want in stock, and even better, they don't charge me anything for the discounts.

Barnes and Noble also isn't helping their cause by charging prices above list for these titles. I was charged $1 over the publisher's list price for this book, which has put me in a strong mind to go over there tomorrow and return it, besides voicing a complaint. Due to the price disadvantage, they really can't afford dumb things like this, since I'm already not inclined to buy things from them.

Posted by Justice at 11:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Blogging will probably be lighter than usual through at least the upcoming Thursday. There are 4 major things which need to be done between now and then, although once they are done, that will essentially close the semester but for some odds and ends.

Hopefully, I'll catch a bit of a break, since a friend is due to be back in town for the weekend. We didn't meet last time around, so it'd be nice to manage this time around.

Posted by Justice at 11:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The argument has been made before that good and evil are opposites and that one cannot be without the other. This sort of falls apart if the principle is extrapolated out to the extremes on either end. Can there be both a supreme good and a supreme evil?

The question hinges on the nature of existence. Is it good or bad? Existence being bad rules out the possibility of supreme good (as it is better for any given thing to not exist than to exist), while existence being good rules out the possibility of supreme evil (if it existed, it would have an element of good). Religions like Buddhism and some early Gnostic heresies believe in the former, while traditional Christianity teaches the latter (hence Hell and not annihilation).

I've never encountered any system where existence is neutral, where something which exists is equally good to something which does not. I don't know that such a position can even be argued, although it's also the only way to argue that there is both a supreme good and a supreme evil in eternal conflict. Although, since existence and non-existence are equally good, a supreme evil could also not exist and still be a supreme evil, which sounds kind of absurd.

So while the whole good and evil being equal and opposed to each other might sound logical, in reality, it only makes sense if one is stronger than the other. Personally, I think it makes sense to go with good being the stronger of the two, rather than the other way around.

Posted by Justice at 10:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

One of the problems with reading a whole bunch of different articles on the problem of evil and God both existing in the world is that those arguing on the non-existence of God have a slight problem dealing with the nature of existence in itself, namely, that Christianity believes it is good, unlike other systems, like Buddhism, where it is not.

In other words, even a damned Satan is, in some way unknown to us, more good than a Satan from whom God revokes existence. Failure to take this into account dooms all such arguments to talking about something apart from Christianity.

Sigh...40 pages more to go at this point for tomorrow's test.

Posted by Justice at 11:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

30 days from now, I will take my last final exam of my undergraduate career. The day after that happens, all the graduation festivities begin.

In the runup to the end, our voting instructor seems almost determined to bury us with work, which is frustrating. Word among the departmental grapevine is that almost everybody essentially skipped a homework question on the most recent assignment due to difficulty and amount of time involved. There are also questions about what the math finance professor is going to do, since there has been no homework announced in more than a month, leaving just 2 assignments to split a 50% pool of points. If the second exam does take place and is not cumulative, the lack of homework is going to hurt.

Philosophy of Religion's last regular lecture was today, since the balance of the course is presentations now. Latin is chugging along through the runup to the final, which includes a massive vocab test covering a potential field of some 900 words. Accounting is running smoothly as it usually does.

It's going to be one heck of a ride to the finish line.

Posted by Justice at 7:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Pope's funeral offers all sorts of contrasts in how people are looking at him.

On the one hand, you have millions of Catholics flocking to his funeral in Rome, along with some 2 billion people watching on television. On the other hand, you have people like this calling the man gravely immoral and responsible for millions of deaths, and others criticizing his doctrinal positions, and yet others engaging in tasteless dialogue before his body was cold (via Michelle Malkin).

A pope that brought huge numbers of young people to his World Youth Days and to his funeral, yet one whose teachings are determined to be out of date by an outdated generation. A pope who is praised for his belief in and attempts at peace and for promoting dialogue getting chewed out for his actions in the Middle East. A man who preached the gospel fearlessly in an age of unbelief being criticized as not having the gospel, and for betraying tradition (via Dave Armstrong).

Pope John Paul II stands out as a sign of contradiction. For as many as have praised him this week, there is an abundance of negative criticisms going out against him for a whole host of reasons. Most of them are guilty of failing to see the larger picture, focusing more narrowly on faults, real or perceived. Of course he had faults, as he well knew, going to Confession daily. But everything has to be considered as a whole - the man had a task which is more difficult than any other other in the world.

Then it comes to the question of his successor. Many in the press have suggested someone more moderate, someone from the third world, someone who would be willing to ditch certain inconvenient social teachings. I think, however, that one of the better clues comes from Cardinal Ratzinger's Good Friday reflections, written only a week or so before the Pope's death. In them, the Cardinal compared the Church to a boat taking in water on all sides, appearing ready to sink.

John Paul II, like his predecessor Paul VI, couldn't help but notice the troubles the Church faced, though perhaps he was not so aware of the catechetical collapse in much of the Western world. His pontificate, however, over 26 years, has been a constant reiteration of the Church's teachings, with Vatican II as a guide. There is a mountain of writing from him, including the many encyclicals, the Catechism, and many other books. A solid, renewed foundation of the Church's teaching.

Foundations, however, want to be built upon. John Paul II has laid the groundwork and foundations of a renewal, but now it requires someone to take what he has left and repair the holes in the Ark, to expel the water and filth that has seeped in and replace the rotten boards. Such damage as the Ark has requires more than patchwork - it requires a gutting in some places. For a while, things may look worse than they do now - rebuilding always does - but the finished product will be worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Holy Spirit's next choice of a Pope will be someone who is going to switch gears from being a firm but loving teacher to being a firm but loving general, focusing more on discipline. But then again, the captain of the Ark might have a totally different idea of what's needed at present.

Posted by Justice at 8:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I ended up at a Youth Mass today. Ostensibly, this sort of thing is being aimed at someone around my age, although frankly, I can think of few things I dislike more in liturgy than this. Maybe it's because I was never into the teenage style of music and fellowship. Or maybe I just think "Lord of the Dance" is an incredibly bad choice of music.

But I'd be curious to see if the youth didn't enjoy a Mass like Pope John Paul II's funeral this week more than the typical Youth Mass, since that was among the best Masses I've seen celebrated ever, not to mention heavily attended by the young.

Depending on the coverage, too, some stations did not stick to the English ordinary to translate the Latin - NBC definitely came up with "and with your spirit" a few times. A bit of a pity that even NBC's people could, at times, translate Latin better than ICEL.

Posted by Justice at 9:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Anchoress has moved from Blogspot, and can now be found here. Please update your links.

Posted by Justice at 7:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A lot of spam is hitting the comment boxes and trackbacks. It won't show up with the filter in place, but your IP may be banned from commenting if it seems to be a frequent offender. If you find you can't post a comment, e-mail me.

Posted by Justice at 5:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well, against my better judgment, I did stay up and watch the Pope's funeral live on Fox, even though I was already recording it twice. Naturally, I then slept past my alarm and so missed both of my morning classes.

Meanwhile, I've just realized what an absolute crush of work is falling due in the near pipeline. In rough summary, the schedule for the next two weeks looks something like this:

- 3 midterms (Accounting, Philosophy of Religion, Voting)
- 1 5-page paper (Philosophy of Religion)
- 2 Latin stories
- 2 Voting assignments
- Reading the necessary Philosophy of Religion readings (~200 pages)
- Accounting project

I'm definitely going to have to stop procrastinating on all of these things. This is the last crunch of my undergraduate life. Once these two weeks have passed, it should be largely smooth sailing.

Posted by Justice at 11:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Pope's funeral starts about 5 hours from now. I probably won't be watching it live, since 4 am is late even for a college student. And, since I now won't need to stay up to finish an incredibly demanding voting homework, I definitely think I'll get some sleep for my quizzes tomorrow. I've got a recording set up at home, and I'm going to try to set up two recordings here, all on different networks. My estimation is that EWTN will be the best, followed by FOX News and NBC.

Meanwhile, several bloggers have pointed out a number of interesting "coincidences" about the timing of the Pope's death. I haven't been much for signs since I turned away from some pretty wacky prophecy groups, but even I have to admit that something seems to be in the making.

I don't want to put too much emphasis on pope lists, eclipses, apparition warnings, and the like, but in the light of all of these things seeming to line up, along with locating the haunting Dies Irae chant last night, I decided to scoot to the confessional today, just in case. I needed it anyway, and in the unlikely event that something happens tomorrow, I'd rather not find myself regretting a day's delay on that particular item.

Posted by Justice at 10:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dave Armstrong does a much better job dealing with anti-Catholic rhetoric than I do, and he's got the jump on several of the worst instances that have come up from some Evangelicals with the Pope's death.

It's time I start reading up on this stuff, so I've added him to the blogroll. Keep up the good work Dave!

Posted by Justice at 4:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well, my classes are set for the upcoming fall. I rather enjoy the schedule, since all the classes are in the afternoon and night, and I have Wednesday and Friday off entirely. The lineup is as follows:

THE 511 - Biblical Studies I (Old Testament)
THE 514 - Theology of the Church
THE 515 - Christian Moral Principles
THE 601 - Biblical Foundations

Posted by Justice at 1:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I kind of knew that Pope John Paul II's death would trigger a round of the liberal Catholics touring the TV networks seeking to air their dissident positions, though I didn't quite think they'd start before the Pope had even been buried, though apparently, agendas know no bounds of decency. It's honestly been the worst part of John Paul II's death.

Michelle Malkin was a good source for finding this nonsense popping up in the media, and also in the Democratic Underground. But one place I really hadn't been expecting anti-papal stuff to pop up was from evangelicals. But centuries-old attitudes toward Rome apparently die hard, and LaShawn Barber happened to tick me off with her initial entry on the Pope's death, particularly with the timing. When that got followed up by an unapologetic reply to my e-mail and this followup post, I felt like responding to her second entry.

I’m the first to admit my timing may have been off, knowing how sensitive people can be. Emotions are running high at a time like this. But that’s all I’ll concede. What I wrote about salvation needs to be said all the time, and that was my focus. I’ve attacked no one.

Sorry, I don't agree. The timing is rather like walking into a wake and questioning whether the deceased is really going to heaven. While others might hold the same opinion, it's not the time and place, and people are naturally going to see red. If you want to write about salvation, fine, make your point, but there's no need to drag in the Pope. Doing so only serves to imply an attack against the Catholic faith.

What’s most disappointing is that some of the hostile folks are bloggers who’ve wholeheartedly endorsed my political views. Together we’ve ranted against liberalism. As long as I wrote what was agreeable to them, all was well. But after just one post, a mere comment on the death of the Pope, some of these same bloggers have expended the energy to e-mail their intent to de-link my site from their blog rolls.

Just like that, they’ve severed the relationship. All these months of writing in tandem on political topics, and suddenly they want nothing to do with LBC. Let me tell you something, people, my comment was mild compared to what needs to be said!

I did de-link. Your politics are largely in agreement, it's true, but given that you think your prior comments about the Pope are mild compared to what needs to be said, I really don't see why you'd be surprised. I'm a Catholic blogger, and linking to someone who doesn't seem inclined to show much, if any, respect for the Catholic faith isn't something I'm going to do.

If you’ve been reading this blog long enough, you know I’m not bothered by self-important announcements about why you won’t be reading or linking anymore. In theory. I’m bothered that you’ve turned so quickly. It’s almost stunning.

Not really. The Pope has been held in high regard by many people in this age, particularly for his moral stands, and by the younger generation. The only company you share in trotting out anti-papal material this early, besides other evangelicals, are some liberal/Democrat activists (like the DU), the MSM, the liberal/feminist wing of the Catholic Church, and extremist Muslims ticked off at al-Jazeera for saying something good about the man. My reaction to you is roughly the same as it is to those people.

Believe me when I tell you, without puffed-up pride, that while you may try to ignore me, I suspect you’ll be hearing from me. How do I know? Because I have a mission. It’s called the Great Commission:

Feel free. The last evangelical minister who tried that with me was a driving force behind my reversion and entry into a Catholic theology program. His big mistake was throwing out inaccuracies about Catholic teaching that I was then able to refute by actually researching. And thus my entry into theology.

Just to be helpful, our Bible has 73 books - something this highly learned man didn't know (he claimed a higher number). You might call that the turning point which suggested he wasn't being an honest presenter.

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2: 1-5)

All praises belong to the Father in Christ Jesus, who is our Intercessor and Redeemer before the Father. There exists no other intercessor or redeemer between God and men, and I’m eternally grateful that my salvation depends on no man or work or tradition, but only on Christ’s unending grace and unspeakable mercy.

Interesting you'd choose St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, since in the exact same letter, he makes this remark:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." [1 Cor 11:2]

God delivered traditions in the Old Testament, and delivered them to the Apostles as well (think Eucharist), which are on a whole other level than those which men make up. It's the difference between "Tradition" and "tradition". Some of what you consider traditions of men, we hold to be given by Christ. If you do not understand these distinctions, you will not make an effective argument against any Catholic who knows their faith well.

Posted by Justice at 10:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Octave of Easter was certainly a conflicted one this year. Despite the joy that's supposed to reign during this week, three deaths came on different days of the week, which really made the Masses and glorious mysteries difficult to keep up.

- On Tuesday, former Bishop of Buffalo Edward Head passed away. That had a bit of sentimental impact, since he was the one who had confirmed me, and had seemed to be a very kind and gentle man the few times I was able to see him after his retirement. I paid a visit to the cathedral on Sunday, where he was lying in state in his coffin, watching the local Knights of Columbus change guards during the visit. The cathedral is impressive, despite the alterations it experienced sometime in the post-Vatican II era.

- On Thursday, Terri Schiavo died from starvation after a long court battle by her parents to try and prevent it. The thirteen days of watching, waiting, hoping, and praying, were an emotional drain, and I really didn't have much time to recover from it before news came that the Pope was on his deathbed and ready to go.

- Pope John Paul II died then Saturday afternoon, not long after I had briefly tuned out the Rosary prayers being offered in St. Peter's Square. From what I hear, the Pope died just after they finished. It's times like these I miss EWTN, since the campus won't carry the channel. I've been tuning into Fox News for most of the coverage, because they seem to have been offering a wide number of guests who aren't getting into Church bashing, unlike some of the other media outlets.

I wish I could say the Pope's death had more of an effect on me, but it really hasn't to this point in time. Part of that is that I have only been more involved in the faith for the last 3 years. All the time before that, I knew his name, but never really saw him or heard any of his message outside of what TIME and the Buffalo News printed about him. And due to the unfortunate circumstance that my faith was originally rebuilt by sedevacantists in conjunction with an apparitions site that goes way overboard, and an extreme reaction stemming from experiences with the local Newman Center, it's been a lot harder to feel the joy that the Pope brought to so many other youth. To that end, I wish I had attended one of his World Youth Days, or some other event where he was present.

This is a Pope I probably won't get to really appreciate until years down the road. I've read very little of his things and really haven't seen much of him on TV or otherwise. That makes his death more removed to me. It's been odd, because during all the tributes, by members of St. Blog's, on the internet, or on TV, I can really sense the loss to the point of being moved to tears. Sort of like experiencing the Pope's greatness through others, where I don't have that sense individually.

Godspeed to all three of them. It's been a week that won't soon be forgotten.

Posted by Justice at 8:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A Gallup poll out recently shows that US opposition to gay marriage is up strongly in the last year. Opposition now stands at 68%, up 13% over last year, and support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is at 57%, up 9% from last year. Assuming these numbers are reflective, that means that nearly 1 out of every 10 Americans changed their position, a rather sharp reaction for just one year.

This I think reflects the fact that gay activists misread the strength of their cards and overplayed their hand. Case in point, they drove away roughly one third of their supporters in a year over whether gay marriage should be granted the same rights as traditional marriage (down from 42% support to 28% support).

Posted by Justice at 7:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The class of blogs on my blogroll formerly known as "American and World Opinion" has been renamed "Pundits" with the Latin equivalent of "Existimatores" which translates to "those who form opinions, critics, or judges".

Also, I've renamed the Catholic bloggers as "St. Blog's Parish", to borrow the umbrella site's name, with the Latin name "Parochia Sancti Blogi".

As before, those with better Latin grammar are encouraged to correct or improve the labels.

Posted by Justice at 4:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I did manage to reach St. Joseph's Cathedral to pay respects to the recently deceased Bishop Head. As it turns out, Bishop Head was the last Bishop to pass away prior to the Pope. His funeral is tomorrow morning, probably delayed a bit since no funerals can be held during the Octave of Easter.

Later, back at St. Michael's, Fr. Hoar said Mass today, having recovered from his sickness. When he got to the part where a prayer for the Pope is offered, he stopped suddenly, and briefly glanced upward before continuing on.

That kind of sums up my feelings of the past two days - largely a normal routine, but with a void. It's been quite an odd series of emotions. I suspect this is all going to hit me in a flood later on, but right now, it's still a bit of shock over him suddenly being gone.

Posted by Justice at 1:29 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Borrowing from the Old Oligarch and taking the lead of the Curt Jester, I've switched the blog's template and some images around until we have a new pope. These changes are only reflected on the main page, not any of the archives or individual entries. If I get ambitious, I might get around to them.

By the by, if anyone knows how to get rid of those annoying white borders around the images on my sidepanel, please let me know how.

Posted by Justice at 9:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

John Paul II has passed away. It seems fitting in a way that this great pope died on the eve of Divine Mercy Sunday, a feast he put on the Church calendar just five years ago. It was also First Saturday, a Marian devotion which came out of the Fatima apparitions, also something close to his heart.

Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace.

Posted by Justice at 3:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The sun is now setting in Rome, perhaps for the last time on Pope John Paul II. I think the Pope would find it fitting to return home on Divine Mercy Sunday, which is now only 5 hours away for him.

The Anchoress and the Pope Blog are providing more frequent updates on the Pope.

Posted by Justice at 12:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

It appears that the Holy Father has reached the end of his time on earth. Vatican officials do not expect him to recover, and have said his death is imminent.

Please pray for the Holy Father, he has not reached the finish line just yet, and can use all of our prayers, whether this is the end or not.

Oremus pro Pontifice nostro, Ioanne Paulo.

Posted by Justice at 2:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

With a few comments about my post on Terri Schiavo's death yesterday, I'm going to expand on my thoughts a little bit more, and try to phrase it more logically, as one reader helpfully suggested.

I don't support euthanasia, and I have to say that anyone who thinks this is acceptable has a flawed view of the nature of and value of human life. Yes, this is a religious position, based very heavily on natural law and theological reasons. But the opposing side does not have a basis on which to proclaim a "right to die" since they have yet to answer satisfactorily where rights come from. As it was pointed out to me, one of the strongest tendencies in all of nature is self-preservation, which euthanasia intrinsically cuts against. But there is a second instinct which counters self-preservation, and that is the kill or be killed instinct. Anyone who has read Lord of the Flies knows how utterly brutal human beings can be against those who they see as either liabilities, threats, or outsiders.

The point of the Lord of the Flies analogy is that ultimately, rights cannot originate from mankind, since given half a chance, things will deteriorate back into a situation where it's survival of the fittest, which doesn't bode too well for significant portions of society which, in a purely materialistic sense, are drains.

So before there is any talk of a right to die, or any rights at all, it would be good to establish where they come from and how they are to be protected. It makes no sense to speak of rights or what is humane without first establishing the framework that determines what those are.

Now, in Terri's specific case, I do hold that the legal system was a complete failure here. A judge essentially ruled on her medical condition and what her wishes in her condition would have been, and throughout, those decisions were never revisited. This is why Congress asked a federal court to review the case afresh. Both rulings are particularly troubling - I can think of almost no case where the legal system can claim the right to determine what a person's wishes are, in the absence of any formal directions, especially in such a serious circumstance as one that results in death.

Furthermore, this smells a bit of an ex post facto situation, since when Terri collapsed in 1990, providing food and water was not considered an artificial extension of life. If her wish was solely not to be kept alive by artificial means, at the time she would have expressed such wishes, removing the feeding tube wouldn't have been artificial means. In other words, had this case been adjudicated in the early to mid 1990s, Florida law would have rejected Schiavo's bid. Any decision about being kept alive by artificial means should have been based on the standards in place at the time she was incapacitated, not based on Florida's legislature suddenly deciding that providing food and water constitute artificial means of extending life (I can think of nothing more natural to extend life than those, and it should be pretty obvious that these do not constitute a medical treatment of any sort. Food and water never cured anything besides hunger and thirst.)

A second problem is the diagnosis. It was made years ago and never revisited. Would it have killed the judicial system to ask for a second medical opinion, to make sure they hadn't botched it? The most common tests used to diagnose the condition were never done, and technology and knowledge about the brain have advanced a far cry from when Terri first collapsed. I sometimes wonder what the legal system would have done had the woman regained consciousness, but remained unable to communicate. In that regard, I'm reminded that one of the cripples healed at Lourdes was considered disabled by a British medical board, despite being shown the man restored to health. The attitude was one of "well, we said you would never get better, and we stand by our ruling." The main was paid his benefits for disability right up until his death. I mean really, if the courts were unwilling to reconsider the facts of her medical condition as it was, would they reconsider if she had recovered? Is the finding of fact more sacrosanct than plain reality that contravenes it? I don't want to know.

I don't find the case of preserving Federalism convincing, especially when outcomes like this occur. Modifying Professor Bainbridge's take slightly, I think that if Federalism is itself held up as an inviolable end in itself, then we have the rather dumb situation of worshipping a theory of government as a god. People are failible - and since Federalism is a human concept, it has innate flaws and in our present situation may no longer be a workable system. We can't go on defending it on the basis of "what is is right" as Charles Dickens so eloquently pointed out.

Posted by Justice at 11:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack