Mood Music

Happy New Church Year -- Advent has begun! As the Ironic Catholic lets us know,  Advent has its own moods, not necessarily reflected by the non-stop Christmas carols being piped into all the places of business. So, rerun from 2007, here is An Advent Carol:

The Ironic Catholic recently published a "conversion" of a secular Christmas song often heard in stores, dentists' offices, etc. into a proper Advent Carol. Not being able to resist the opportunity to do a song parody, I offer this Advent "conversion" experience:

"Happy Advent (We are Waiting)" by DMinor
to the tune of "Happy Christmas (War is Over)"
Apologies to John Lennon and Yoko Ono (but not many)

So this is Advent,
The Church Year's begun.
It's time to prepare for
The coming of God's Son.
And so during Advent
We pray and await.
The birth of the Christ Child
We anticipate.

We're getting set for Christmas,
Starting out this new year
We'll make it a good one
God is drawing near

And so for this Advent
Let's find time to pray,
In the midst of our shopping
And our busy day.
And so have an Advent
that reverently makes
us ready to greet Him
who died for our sakes.

We're getting set for Christmas,
Starting out this new year
We'll make it a good one
God is drawing near

So this is Advent,
The Church Year's begun.
It's time to prepare for
The coming of God's Son.
And so during Advent
We pray and await.
The birth of the Christ Child
We anticipate.

We're getting set for Christmas,
Starting out this new year
We'll make it a good one
God is drawing near

We are waiting
For the Christ Child
We await his birth

A Dawning of Day

"I really only love God as much as I love the person I love the least."
— Dorothy Day 

 Today's quote courtesy of Hon. Daughter number 1.

A bite at the Apple

Haven't had much time for putting together a decent post recently (although I am working on a parody -- let's hope it sees the light of day before it becomes irrelevant), but I did run across this little video tidbit from Fr. Johannes M. Schwarz of the tiny principality of Liechtenstein :

Gratuitous Namedropping

The Ironic Catholic has published her book, Dear Communion of Saints and is hosting a virtual book launch party at her blog today!

(While the odds of anyone actually coming to this blog and reading this announcement are remote, I'm posting it nonetheless as I want to be in her "free book" drawing.)

Something to Think About

Briefly de-sabbaticalizing to post this link to an extremely thoughtful essay comparing Roman Polanski's life to that of a well-known countryman and contemporary. It's the Anchoress at her best. Worth passing along if only a little bit farther, I think.

Sic 'Em, Dogma

Okay, I haven't been doing much with this blog in quite a while and I haven't done anything that could be confused with Catholic blogging in longer. So here, at last, is something of a more thelogical nature than what has become my usual offering of snark:

I used to hear more about Kathleen Kennedy Townsend when we lived in Maryland and she was running for Congress or something. (Some wag at the time remarked that every Kennedy scion received, at graduation, a Cross pen and his or her own congressional district. Or maybe it was a silver cup and and a district at christening; I forget which.) Anyway after hearing mention of an article she'd written yesterday, I thought I'd look it up and see what she was up to.

What she's up to is an article in that bastion of journalistic integrity, Newsweek. It's published, of course, to coincide neatly with last week's presidential Papal audience. Its title is--try not to hyperventilate--Without a Doubt: Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.You could read it, but if you've been following the Catholic web trail any for the past six months and read any of the discussion on why practicing Catholics should have supported Barack Obama you can probably write it for yourself. Things are not entirely hopeless, however; thoughtful responses are beginning to come in. Catholic Online has this nicely succinct one by Frederick R. Liewehr.

A Good Readership is Hard to Find

Q: Should Catholic fiction writers write for a Catholic audience?

A: No. Not enough Catholics read good fiction. To write for a Catholic audience would mean that the writer would either 1) have to write down, or 2) starve to death. Neither is advisable.

--Flannery O'Connor.
(Response to the question of a student correspondent in The Motley [Spring Hill College, Mobile, AL] Spring 1958.
Reprinted in Conversations With Flannery O'Connor Rosemary M. Magee, ed. 1987 by the University Press of Mississippi.)

There is no St. Kermit . . . .

Today, the parody department presents a work gleaned from the comment box of the The Curt Jester. The verse was penned by Burnt Marshwiggle in response to a story on a Baton Rouge, Louisiana Mass in which a dog puppet made frequent explanatory interruptions.

reprinted with permission from the author:

It's time to play the music
It's time to light the lights, it's time to meet the puppets on the puppet mass tonight.

It's time to put on makeup
It's time to dress up right
It's time to raise the curtain on the puppet mass tonight.

Why do we always come here? We both already know, we have an obligation, despite the puppet show.

And now let's get things started
Why don't you get things started
It's time to get things started

On the most irrational desperational congegrational puppetational
This is what we call the Puppet Mass!

I generally don't get as wrapped around the axle on cultural variations in Mass (guitar vs organ vs silent, etc.). However, I do get very upset about the unnecessary disruption of others' prayer in Mass.


Update! There actually is a St. Kermit. Click here for details.

An Advent Carol

The Ironic Catholic recently published a "conversion" of a secular Christmas song often heard in stores, dentists' offices, etc. into a proper Advent Carol. Not being able to resist the opportunity to do a song parody, I offer this Advent "conversion" experience:

"Happy Advent (We are Waiting)" by DMinor
to the tune of "Happy Christmas (War is Over)"
Apologies to John Lennon and Yoko Ono (but not many)


So this is Advent,
The Church Year's begun.
It's time to prepare for
The coming of God's Son.
And so during Advent
We pray and await.
The birth of the Christ Child
We anticipate.

We're getting set for Christmas,
Starting out this new year
We'll make it a good one
God is drawing near

And so for this Advent
Let's find time to pray,
In the midst of our shopping
And our busy day.
And so have an Advent
that reverently makes
us ready to greet Him
who died for our sakes.

We're getting set for Christmas,
Starting out this new year
We'll make it a good one
God is drawing near

So this is Advent,
The Church Year's begun.
It's time to prepare for
The coming of God's Son.
And so during Advent
We pray and await.
The birth of the Christ Child
We anticipate.

We're getting set for Christmas,
Starting out this new year
We'll make it a good one
God is drawing near

We are waiting
For the Christ Child
We await his birth

Blown Chances

I thought that, as a bit of exercise, I would do the Chesapeake Bay Bridge walk. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge links the easternmost quarter of Maryland (the eastern shore) with its western part near the state capital, Annapolis. It used to be that once a year, in May, one span of would be closed to all but pedestrian traffic. Large numbers of folks would come out for the hike which went from the eastern to the western bank. Apparently, after 9/11, the walk was discontinued for a couple of years, but it was scheduled to occur today. However, mother nature had other plans: the walk was cancelled due to high winds.

Since I still wanted to get out and breathe the fresh air, I decided I would go to Sandy Point State Park, which is at the foot of the Bay Bridge. The high winds made for a cool, picturesque walk.
I discovered that walking in sand is awfully slow and kills my back. However, I did walk along the beach in several places, and even scrambled part of the way down a rock jetty where fishermen were enjoying the Sunday. A down side was the $6 fee the State of Maryland charges non-residents for using the park on the weekend (residents are charged $5), and the fact that the concession was not open, so I could not replace the batteries in my camera (I put my spares in a bag i convieniently left back in my room.). All in all, though, it was a good outing.

Yesterday, I went to northern Virginia. My mother is buried in the area, and whenever I travel to the vicinity I like to visit. It rained during the time I was there, but I was prepared with a poncho. From the cemetary I traveled to Falls Church, where I attended vigil mass at St. Anthony of Padua. I attended middle school at St. Anthony's (when it was called St. Anthony's; the school has since been renamed), so the grounds and the church held memories for me. It can be fairly said that I recieved my first prolonged exposure to Roman Catholicism in that church and school. And while it took about 22 years after my last religion class there to convert, I eventually did. My eighth-grade religion teacher, who asked when I would convert, would be proud.

Bending Over Backwards

Inspired by the Ironic Catholic's post on the refined teaching regarding unbaptized babies, the Parody department came up with this ditty:

Limbo Rock
by Dminor (apologies to Jon Sheldon and Billy Strange)

Every little boy and girl
That does arrive into our world
Has a chance to be with God
All can have a decent shot
If the parents aren't so quick
or perhaps a little thick
God can take them in his hand
It is up to his command

(spoken)
We can hope it now
Limbo's over now
We hope, but not know
(sung)

Tho we fear that Adam's stain
Keep babies from heaven's plain
Innocent tho they may be
of the world's depravity
tho some can baptize 'em quick
some arrive here much too sick
and those lost inside the womb
we hope God can make some room

(instrumental break)

Where God takes a baby's soul
only He can have control
We pray to the Lord above
That He handles them with love
We used Limbo to explain
How those babies kept from pain
It's for just Him to decide
certain knowledge we're denied

(spoken)
Don't lose that faithful hope
So said our holy Pope
We hope but not know

---------------------------------

The Zenit dispatch on the subject is here.

-----------------------

A side note: I was able to visit with Rambling Speech, and she was looking well. She is very much the Balmerite, at least for now. . . .

Fathers of the Church quiz

You’re St. Justin Martyr!

You have a positive and hopeful attitude toward the world. You think that nature, history, and even the pagan philosophers were often guided by God in preparation for the Advent of the Christ. You find “seeds of the Word” in unexpected places. You’re patient and willing to explain the faith to unbelievers.

Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

Holy Thursday

To the old law still obedient
In its feast of love divine
Love divine, the new law giving,
Gives himself as Bread and Wine

. . . .

Come , adore this wonderous presence;
bow to Christ, the source of grace!
Here is kept the ancient promise
Of God's earthly dwelling place!

- from Pange Lingua

Same Song, Second Verse

The garden is coming along and things have settled down a bit, but as Holy Week is beginning I'm going to be extending my blog holiday for a while longer. I thought I ought to get in an addendum to D's comments below, however, before shutting down operations. I've been reading the continuing adventures of Sister and her motley crew of nuns for several months now, whereas he looks in only on occasion; lately I've been studying it and its companion site in depth, so I have a bit wider experience from which to opine.

I think D's assessment of the blog is basically sound. Sister, whoever she may be, is above all else a good storyteller.(I'm using the feminine article for convenience's sake here; she could be a middle-aged man in a wifebeater t-shirt for all I know. Her flair for detail makes me lean slightly in the direction of the author's being female, but that's a hypothesis I could easily revise. And while I acknowledge the possibility that she could be a nun, little would surprise me more than to be shown authoritatively that this is the case.) Her characters are not mere stereotypes; they are sympathetically portrayed and come alive in the stories. They could easily be real people, and may be based on real people.

The posts as a rule are not excessively long (the picture volume, however, can make for slow loading for those of us with slightly obsolete software; a skilled proofreader would moreover be to her benefit.) They generally blend some entertaining personal story or news item with a fairly basic catechism lesson or saint story; occasionally some contemporary church issue like the Medjugorje revelations is discussed. Sister seems to do do a respectable job of researching her material, as far as this spottily-schooled lay Catholic can see; on occasion a better-informed reader corrects a point. At worst, I haven't noticed anything that strikes me as disrespectful of the Church or outright heresy. The blog is funny and interesting and seems, understandably, popular. It is far from "deep" theology, mind you--it would never occur to me to ask Sister a Jimmy Akin-level question or to assume she was correct on a point that I couldn't independently verify. Most of Sister's lessons are the sort of thing that can be picked up at Catholic Online or similar sites, put into an entertaining story. When I taught middle-school religious ed, I'd have loved to have had a textbook formatted in this style. The comboxes are generally pretty friendly as well, and Catholics of various stripes often discuss belief and tradition or share advice with each other.

Sister is affiliated with an online purveyor of religious medals which sell for about $12 apiece and are attractively strung with colorful beads or macrame. They're pretty, but assuming they're garden-variety tin medals and craft store findings the price strikes me a bit stiff. Display pages include blurbs in the same slightly snarky but basically respectful tone of the blog posts. (I thought one play on the term "ball chain" pushed the envelope, but nothing else raised hackles.) It's a pretty good advertising scheme, especially if you're aiming at young Catholics of the 'Net generation. I could find no information on the sales site that would clue me in to who runs the shop or what affiliations they may have; paraphernalia typical of many Catholic sites and blogs--a dedication to a patron saint for example--seem to be absent as well. I'm not saying the proprietors are not Catholic; it's not as if anybody gets rich in the sacramentals business and there's little nonreligious motivation for going into it. But assuming they are, they're certainly not overt about it.

The blog is of a type I would call a "character blog" or "persona blog" and in that regard is one of quite a few I've encountered on the 'Net. Usually it is apparent that such blogs portray a character, although the bloggers, dramatic types that they are, often go to great lengths to stay in character. The author of another character blog I read, (unfortunately less frequently due to the enforced slower pace of reading Middle English) Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog encountered a problem because of this. It seems a magazine contacted him about using a quote for an article but needed to publish his real name. He insisted that his "real name" was Geoffrey Chaucer and refused to give any other; thus he was not published.

Sister, likewise, seems determined to be Sister and only Sister to the readership. This really wouldn't seem to be a problem; one wouldn't expect that any reader could pass the blog's masthead, with its snarky "Life is tough. But nuns are tougher..." motto and black-and-white photo of a traditionally-habited elderly nun that pretty obviously came from a pre-Vatican II-era Catholic school yearbook, and remain under the delusion that what follows represents reality. Unfortunately, in the world of the 'Net, all kinds of things one wouldn't expect seem to happen.

While I doubt that the most naive reader would presume that the 500-plus-years-deceased Chaucer has lately resurrected and taken up blogging, elderly nuns--even the traditional variety--are fairly common. Moreover, women religious and postulants are well represented in the blogosphere, as are monks. Thus a blogging traditional nun isn't a huge imaginative leap for a moderately 'Net-savvy Catholic. Add to the mix the fact that the 'Net is society condensed: skim Sister's combox for a few weeks and you'll find all kinds. [Full disclosure: Skim Sister's next-to-last post and you'll encounter Yours Truly at loggerheads with a particularly vicious species of troll. I must be a lightning rod.] There are seekers, trads who love Sister's pre-Vat. II mindset, and occasional anticatholics. Some of the lattermost clearly come in with an eye to thrashing some Catholics; a few are under the impression that it's the blog version of Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You. (I haven't seen the play, but reviews I've read indicate its contempt for Catholicism is pretty overt. If the Sister of the blog is trying to mock the Church in any way, she's being phenomenally subtle about it.) Among the Catholics, most readers seem to understand that they are dealing with a persona, (a few have thought it a con job, and indicated as much) and don't have any problem with that. Trying to sleuth out Sister's real identity with probing questions is an ongoing game, but as she has thus far been closemouthed on that matter little progress has been made that I can see.

A few readers--most Catholics, some probably seekers, do seem to be under the impression that Sister is a 100% Real Nun. This is where the potential for harm is. The odds of encountering people with "issues" in a few months of blogging are high. One recently scolded Sister at length for her crusty answers to questioners, which he considered unsuitable to a religious. (He obviously never met Sr. Andrew, who taught at my school until it closed down in the early '70's.) I suggested he was taking the blog too seriously; I wish he had replied to me because my next comment to him would have been to direct him to the dictionary to look up "persona." I've had enough contact with amateur theater folks to respect their commitment to their characters, but there are limits.

Others ask advice on matters that are very probably beyond Sister's scope, and a few seem to hang on her words with just a little too much vehemence to be really healthy. I don't have a problem at all with someone, Catholic or otherwise, portraying a nun as long as it's in good fun and done respectfully. I don't care for Whoopi Goldberg's politics, but I thought Sister Act was kinda cute. I do, however, have a problem with anyone portraying a nun allowing that portrayal to go to a point at which it becomes messing with someone's mind. If Sister's creator is a Catholic, I can't imagine how she can post three times a week with that responsibility hanging over her head. I couldn't do it. I couldn't have somebody take my crusty act the wrong way (even if they hadn't been very nice to begin with) and not try to smooth things over. I couldn't keep up the act in the presence of someone who--as far as I could see--genuinely needed help. The Catholic training runs too deep.

Sister may be a good Catholic, or a good person who is not a Catholic, with good intentions. If I had ever gotten the impression that her intent was nefarious, I would currently have more time to read Chaucer. But what seems to have started out as a clever but harmless product-moving scheme is getting out of control, and needs to be brought back into line. Comment moderation is easily enough done, and can go far toward keeping troublemakers out and discussion civil. And if Sister is not doing so, she needs to consider seriously the need to occasionally drop character long enough to make sure her "act" will not lead to harm.

For the rest of us, what to do? It costs nothing to read, and as long as the stories continue to be good I intend to do so. For readers who get the joke, I think the blog is benign. I don't know that I'll be hanging around the comboxes much; the atmosphere in there has gotten too tense. As for the sales side of the operation: I don't wear much jewelry, have access to sacramentals shops locally if I need them, and am troubled by the lack of information available about the business. So I believe for now I'll just keep my credit card tucked away.

A BLESSED EASTER TO ALL.

UPDATE 5/15/07: Just happened across Sister's Best Stuff in the World Page--One of her commenters addresses her thus: Jane, You’re still funny after all these years! Barbara Daly Fincher The Plot Thickens...

It's a Mystery

I have watched with interest some exchanges on Ask Sister Mary Martha, a blog connected with an online sacramental store, heavenhelpus. The blog is written in the character of an older Sister who teaches in a Catholic school, and plays upon the stereotype of the dour nun. One might think that flogging an old cliche like that would be a receipe for tedium. However, this is far from the case.

First of all, Sr. Mary Martha appears to be knowledgable about and respectful of Catholic culture and teachings. For example, when discussing the "Saturday promise" of the brown scapular, she correctly pointed to the necessary beliefs underlying the promise. I have seen no reason to argue with Sister's knowledge of the faith and doctrine. She does avoid deep theology, but that would be consistent with the persona.

Added to the interesting information, Sister is a likable persona who is reasonably well written. Her stories are subtle, amusing, and (important for a blog) not too long. When I read Sister's posts, I can hear her voice in my head (or, perhaps, the voices of some of the older nuns back at St. Anthony's).

The quality of the blog, however, is not what prompted me to write. Rather, it is the folks it attracts to its comm box. Generally, they come in two types: Catholics who appreciate the content and enjoy Sister's stories, and those who come to tear down and ridicule the faithful. Some of the latter believe that they have an ally in Sister, since she is a persona. I imagine that these are the same types who would have found the "Beverly Hillbillies"-based reality show amusing; the misadventures of the inferior put on display for the elite. I have a real distaste for that way of thinking.

Somewhere, there may be a man in a wifebeater teeshirt laughing at all the faithful, as he counts his earnings from selling religious medals. On the internet, you never can be absolutely certain with whom you are dealing. And that goes double when money is involved. It is hard to imagine, though, someone keeping up the pretense of respect for the Catholic faith apparent in "Ask Sister Mary Martha" while harboring animosity towards it.

I enjoy the blog, and I enjoy the earnest discussion that ensues. Folks appear to occasionally learn some things, and the discourse, save the trolls, is civil. Whatever the motivation of the author of the blog (and I have to believe that it is at least partly commercial), I believe the blog is, at its worst, harmless and, at its best, a worthwhile read.

For C's take on the matter, check out her post above.

Of Fish and Blogs

Two short points to bring into the first full week of Lent:

Sr. Mary Martha, one of C's favorite reads, gives a nice explanation of how McDonald's came to have the "Filet 'o Fish" sandwich, and what horrors we might have faced in an alternative product aimed at the Lenten Catholic market.

Also, I would like to officially mark the second year of the minor premise. C made her first post at the beginning of February 2006 (a book review), and the blog has gone great guns ever since. And, while the blog was actually opened in November of 2005, the substance of the premise did not get going until C put cursor to screen.


Aside from C to Foxfier/Sailorette, whose comment on the above post was just noted:
Actually, Barnes and Noble got the money. But I figure I'll get my dollar's worth in the long run by being able to cite text to back up my assertions that it's not a very good book, and maybe by lending it to a few folks who might otherwise go off and buy their own copy. With caveats, of course.

a really quick book review

Book: Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. 1999 Basilica Press.

Subject Matter: Especially handy if it's your dumb luck to be frequently hit up with anti-Catholic arguments from your acquaintances. Perhaps a bit too smart for your average anti-Catholic, but definitely useful against the moderatedly well-schooled variety. Topics covered include assorted papal primacy issues, reportedly heretical popes from the Middle Ages, what Pius XII was really doing during the Holocaust, and sedevacantism. Thus Madrid pretty much covers all the bases and arms the reader against assault from both the anti-Catholic flank and the More-Papist-Than-the-Pope flank.

Style: Thorough, if a little more than it needs to be in spots. Pretty readable, although a few sections and some of the longer quotes left me glazed over after a while. A little trimming in places would probably have been a good thing, but it's probably better to saturate the reader than to leave out something vital.

Tone: Generally positive. Just a wee tad snide in a few spots. Madrid seems to have long experience debating people who make the arguments covered in this book, and I'm sure the temptation of a tart one-liner is sometimes too much to resist, but it does stand out in an otherwise "just the facts, ma'am" treatement of the subject.

Recommendations: Good for those who often find themselves in debates with anti-Catholics, if the discussion ever makes it to papacy issues. Also informative if (like me) you were raised woefully ignorant of Church history and doctrine.

**********
And since a holiday item is de rigeur for this blog:
[UPDATE: Oh, it looks like D got one up already. What the heck!]
Here Kathleen Parker offers astute (and darn funny, if you enjoy a good double entendre) commentary on the Vagina Monologues. Must-read for anyone who, like myself, has wondered what this--for lack of a better analogy--apparent exercise in navel contemplation has to do with either good drama or fighting violence against women. An excerpt:
Ensler's V-Day, unlike the lowly valentine, isn't a small gesture. It is an institution on many college campuses, a global movement and a multimillion-dollar industry aimed, at least initially, at stopping violence against women and girls.

No one can argue against such a noble cause, even if it does mean pretending that talking publicly about one's privates is a sign of intellectual vigor. But let's be honest as long as we're being open: The subtext of the monologues is implicitly anti-male -- misandrist messages pimped as high art.

For anyone left on the planet who doesn't know what the monologues are, they're a series of soliloquies in which characters wax indelicately about their delicates...

One can read Ensler's book in about two cups of coffee -- or two stiff drinks, if women rhapsodizing about their inner sanctum isn't your cuppa tea.

***********
On a more somber note, we here in Georgia lost one of our own yesterday: Congressman Charlie Norwood, to cancer. Congressman Norwood represented his district with quiet efficiency, and a minimum of showboating. He was reliably conservative, and stood up for the needs of his district. Best of all, I always got a response from his office whenever I contacted him, and periodically received updates on issues even if I hadn't petitioned him. Now, that's what I call representation.

May he rest in the Lord.

shorts

I try to read George Will regularly--this column is an example of why. Great contrast of Emersonian versus Madisonian view of democracy; really makes you think.

******
Presidential candidate/erstwhile North Carolina Senator John Edward's bonehead play, namely the hiring of a couple of ill-natured leftist bloggers whose CVs to that point apparently consisted largely of profane rants against anyone and everyone who didn't fall in with them politically, has been a great source of amusement for the conservative blogosphere lately. I've heard, however, that some Catholic bloggers have not been at all amused. It seems that the Edwards Erinyes' electron trail has included some singularly vicious anti-Catholic screeds.

Should anyone reading this post be concerned about this state of affairs, I highly recommend this post, and this one from Iowahawk. Either of these literary endeavors ought to completely alter any righteously outraged net junkie's perspective on Edwards and his electioneering. Or at least keep him laughing too hard to fuss. (H/T MrsDarwin)

ALERT: The language in these posts is, for the very obvious reason that it mimics the chosen blogging vernacular of the Erinyes themselves, strictly rated R, if not NC-17. I'm talking Scarface caliber. CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED.

oh, for some dancing angels

DarwinCatholic recently had an excellent (and discussion-provoking) post on anti-evolution arguments (specifically those in Ann Coulter's book Godless.) The whole is worth reading, but one reference in particular got me mulling over some things I'd recently read. We Catholics are notable hair-splitters (which is fine mental exercise,) but I'm beginning to think the reason Sister used to answer so many questions with "It's a mystery!" was that she knew what was coming if she got into specifics. Staunch defense of the faith is admirable, but it's important to make sure it's actually a point of faith that is being defended. It's also important not to run roughshod over the beatitudes while defending the faith; that tends to negate any good that may be accomplished.

Monogenism--the idea that all humanity stems from one pair of ancestors--seems to lead to more fisticuffs among the bretheren and sisteren in Catholic blog comboxes than any other, excepting maybe sex and liturgical music. Oh, it can get nasty in there. I've actually gotten to a point very close to yelling at the screen, "YOU ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST! YOU ARE PROBABLY IN PERFECT AGREEMENT ON 90% OR BETTER OF ALL POINTS OF DOCTRINE! YOU ARE HAVING A MINOR DISAGREEMENT ON A VERY ESOTERIC THEOLOGICAL POINT! STOP CALLING EACH OTHER NAMES! AND GO TO YOUR ROOMS! NOW!!!" You wouldn't think it would be the sort of topic that would result in the throwing of virtual crockery among Catholics as the Church never objected to the theory of evolution (on the other hand, I guess you wouldn't have expected the question of whether Christ had one will or two to result in the throwing of actual crockery in the 7th century--but it did.)

That idea, regardless of whether it's approached biblically or biologically, tends to end up all tied up in an absolutely literal reading of the first several chapters of Genesis. A literal reading of Genesis leaves some unanswered questions. While initially only one couple (and subsequently their offspring) are mentioned, somewhere about the time Cain reduces the human population by one by murdering his brother Abel we start getting some hints that he and his parents are not alone in the world:
...anyone may kill me at sight. (Gen. 4:15) NAB
I don't know about you, but I think if he had been thinking of his father Adam the words would have come out differently. Then, out of the blue, Cain acquires a wife and fathers Enoch.

It is at this point that the tizzies start. If there are no other people in the world, then Cain must be (horrors) marrying his sister! On the other hand, maybe there were other humanoids who were not ensouled, and the children of Adam and Eve interbred with them--but that would be icky, too, because they wouldn't really be humans. Add in the reference to humans interbreeding with the Nephilim in Gen. 6, and you've got a regular soap opera (or maybe a primetime medical drama.) We modern humans are understandably uncomfortable with either option. Sibling incest taboos have been pretty widespread, if not absolutely universal, throughout history (although Genesis later indicates that they were not in effect at this time: Abram and Sarai are half-siblings through their father Terah.) Likewise, humans interbreeding with something not quite human is a pretty creepy concept. But while the criterion for humanness with regard to the Creation is ensoulment, the presence or absence of a human soul doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with species genetics. You could (in theory anyway) have souled humans and unsouled humans with identical DNA and the capacity to reproduce. For some reason the recent report of skeletal finds that suggested interbreeding might have taken place between Neandertals and Sapiens hominids came to mind, although I think that's probably an apples-and-oranges comparison.

One commenter on Darwin's post raised the objection that unsouled humans didn't fit with the concept of a merciful and loving God; I think that's a valid point. Which is why I'm less concerned with how God ensouled humanity than with the belief that He did. Likewise I'm less concerned with whether there is some sort of genetic basis for original sin than I am with the readily observable fact that we all bear its stain to some degree or another.

Jesus may well have explained all these matters to the apostles, but if He did, it didn't make it into any of the Gospels. Mebbe those were the things that the evangelists had to leave out because there just wasn't room--that which fell under "if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books..." (Jn. 21:25. NAB.) I'm inclined to think that the reason it wasn't written down is that, unlike that business about loving God and your neighbor, being like a child before God, feeding the hungry, etc., it wasn't critical to our development as Christians. I can see the Evangelist on Patmos now: "What to leave out...the prophecy of John?...the miracles?...that business about keeping His commandments? Or the skinny on where Cain got his wife?"

An odd analogy crept into my mind while I was mulling all this over, and refused to leave. I figure I'll conclude with it, even if it is silly, because it has stubbornly lingered between my ears. It might be problematic as it requires that a mythical (folkloric?) being stand in for God, whom I don't believe to be a mythical being. What the heck, so did Narnia. It sums up pretty well, though, where I've been trying to go with this:

There's an old CTW television special called Christmas Eve on Sesame Street. (It about figures I'd come around to a childrens' programming analogy eventually. Heck, I've spent the last twenty years raising kids; what did you expect?) One of the story lines of the program involves Big Bird's quest to solve the mystery of how Santa gets down chimneys. This is more dramatic than one would think as Bird is convinced (oh, that nasty Oscar!) that unless he can figure this out, no one will get any presents. He eventually dozes off on the roof while awaiting Santa's arrival. By the time his friends find him and bring him down to the warmth of his neighbors' apartment, Bird is in despair: he's missed Santa and will never solve the mystery! Neighbor Gordon brings him back down to earth simply by pointing out the filled stockings on the hearth, the gifts under the tree. "Does it look to you," he queries Bird, "like nobody's having Christmas around here?" Everything suddenly falls into place for Big Bird: Christmas comes, and Santa gets down that chimney, regardless of whether we understand all the details.

God is with us, who have both immortal souls and a sinful nature, regardless of whether we ever figure out all the details of our earthly origins.

Beloved, let us love one another,because love is of God;
everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.
1Jn 4:7 NAB

Our Lady of the Wal-Mart

The Man With the Black Hat reports on a North Carolina artist who, "... intrigued by the public obsession with celebrity has found herself feeding that obsession with a painting of actress Angelina Jolie as the Virgin Mary hovering over a Wal-Mart check-out line."

"You really," he adds, "have to see it to believe it." He kids us not. Ay, ay ay.

Having acknowledged a special reverence for Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mr. Hat draws a comparison between that image and this one of decidedly non-miraculous origin. While he has a point to make in taking this tack and it is well-taken, I don't think that the apparition of Tepeyac served as inspiration for this particular bit of artistry. It looks to me a bit more like Sistine Chapel wannabee, right down to the intricately draped fabric of Angie's gown and her two adopted toddlers standing in as winged cherubim. My first thought on viewing this work was that the ideal medium for it really would have been black velvet. It's tempting to suspect that had the artist been twenty-five years older she would have specialized in heroic Elvises.

Okay, I'm not that dense. I realize that artist Kate Kretz's purpose probably isn't to glorify Ms. Jolie, but to satirize, if not in the most original fashion, our celeb-crazed society's glorification of her. I can't say for sure whether anti-Catholicism factored into her work. Mr. Hat, who has probably spent more time reading the lady's websites than I have, thinks she was likely "driven more by militant naivete than pure malevolence...It never occurs to [some people] that there may be more to that phenomenon than a mere collection of venerated images, a plaything for their vain attempt at kitsch." I'm inclined to think that he's correct. Certainly there is nothing about this painting remotely comparable with the infamous Virgin in elephant dung: it's kitschy, irreverent, and not in the best taste, but in my opinion it falls far short of blasphemy. A pious Catholic artist seeking to make the same point would have chosen other (hopefully less confrontational) imagery; I have to assume that Ms. Kretz is not one and didn't understand what C. S. Lewis referred to as "the peculiar and chivalrous sensibility" of the devout when they perceive an insult to our Blessed Mother. (Mere Christianity)

I am under the impression that Ms. Kretz's sensitivity faux pas has led to assaults on her blog comboxes, as her latest post indicates that she has closed them. Mild annoyance, I can understand, but orchestrating a campaign of howlers over something this trival seems to me a pointless waste of righteous indignation. Go out and march for Life, write the whole darn Security Council about the Darfur genocide, or just take two rosaries and call me in the morning, but for Pete's sake spare us the kinder, gentler version of the Mohammed Cartoon Outrage. If the lady has exhibited offensive ignorance, be too polite to notice. You don't have to buy her paintings.

Thus I would discourage protests, the sending of nasty emails, or any other expressions of excessive outrage. Such reactions are un-Christian, they make the rest of us who weren't carrying on look bad, and they tend to make the neutral and mildly anti-Catholic into hardened Roundheads. They also tend to be counterproductive in that rather than calling down censure upon the offender, they frequently draw attention to and increase that person's popularity.

When The Last Temptation of Christ first came out in theaters, my hip, charismatic (liturgically speaking) then-pastor felt it his duty to view and then review it for the benefit of the flock. The film itself he panned, not merely on its theology but on its cinematic points (or lack thereof.) But in reference to the cries of outrage that were echoing among some Catholic groups--and being magnified to our collective detriment by the offenders and their apologists --he offered this bit of philosophy: "God has gotten over bigger offenses than this."