bearing blog

WARNING: TAKE YOUR INFANT OUT OF THE CAR SEAT BEFORE SENDING IT THROUGH THE AIRPORT X-RAY.

'Nuff said. 

Perhaps this should be a series.

So what do you think about during Adoration?

Brad gives us a look into his head.  Excellent post, good for anyone who's wondered what it's all about.

h/t Happy Catholic.

Orient yourself.

Rumor has it that liturgical changes are coming, including more Latin, reining in theologically  out-there hymns, and maybe the priest will be encouraged to face the same direction as the people again.  Ad orientam:  to the east.  Or, as opponents like to put it, "with his back to the people."

Rich Leonardi quotes one of those opponents:

Thus, when the priest was at the altar, with his back to the congregation, while reciting prayers in Latin in a barely audible manner, the message was clear, even if not explicit. The priest is the one who makes the Mass happen (the old textbooks referred to it as "confecting the Eucharist"), while the laity are present essentially as onlookers ...

That's how the argument goes.  Ad orientam = "back turned to the people" = people reduced to onlooker status = high'n'mighty priest.  Priest turned toward the people, then, supposedly sent the message that the priest was just this guy, you know?, one of us, and raised the people to the status of participants, not merely an audience.

I submit for your consideration: two images. 

In each, one man is going step by step through a highly ritualized routine, complete with special costume and equipment.  He is in front of a number of other people standing rank on rank in rows,  who are looking to the man in front for cues even as they go through motions that they themselves know well.  In the first picture, the man in front faces the  people I just spoke of.  In the second, his back is to them.

Number 1:    The "Rock Star and Audience" model.  (That's The King.)

Number 2:  The "Drum Major And The Rest Of The Marching Band" model.  (TBDBITL, of course.  Yeah, I know, these guys have an audience too.  But right now I'm thinking about the folks in the Sam Browne belts.)

A few observations.

1) The drum major may have a fancy title and a fancier hat, but he is most emphatically one of the band members.

2)  Isn't it obvious that the drum major and the rest of the band have a shared purpose, and that the rock star and the audience do not?

3)  Whose position --- the drum major's relative to the rest of the band, or the rock star's relative to the people in the pews, leads to the appearance that it's All About The Guy Up Front?

4)  Is the rock star singing along to the music generated by the audience?  Is the drum major dancing to the music generated by the marching band?  Hm?  So who're the "onlookers" here, and who are the "active participants?" 

My point is just that it's inherently absurd to say that when the priest's back is to the people, the message is that the people are a mere audience, but when the priest faces the people, the message is that the people are active participants.   Does anyone seriously think that because the drum major has his back to the trombone players and the drummers, "the message is clear" that the music is coming from him?

The posture of the Performer is to face his audience. 

The posture of the Leader Among Us is to face the direction we're trying to go.

Now it may well be that, back in the day, the priest mumbled, barely audibly; and now, everybody can hear fine and dandy.  Although being able to read lips probably helped some, I suspect this has not so much to do with our newly enlightened liturgical style and more to do with the fact that these days, churches (at least the big cavernous ones) have amplification systems.

And don't forget another thing we have in common with the marching band... we rehearse.  We do this every week, you know?  So we know what's coming.  I could probably come up with more analogies (Music appropriate to the venue!  The Playing Field!) but I think I'd be stretching harder than the guy with the baton.

Union busting at the "progressive" non-profit.

Lest you think I never cover anything on the left side of the blogosphere, here is a fascinating and detailed multi-part series about union-busting at the nonprofit FFPIRG.  (Minnesota members can take comfort:  MPIRG is not affiliated with the organization described here.)

The link provided goes to the conclusion; use the links to "first post," "part two," "part three," etc. at the top of the page to navigate the story.

My disclaimer on this topic is that, as a graduate student, I once worked very hard for a "no" vote on a grad student union --- my beat was posting anti-union flyers in the Social Sciences Tower, which was a pretty thankless job, let me tell you.  But it wasn't because I was against unionization, rather because I was against that particular union --- a branch of a teachers' union, and particularly because research assistants and teaching assistants were to be covered under the same bargaining unit, which is patently ridiculous.  (And, unfortunately, enshrined in Minnesota state law --- I still believe that TAs deserve to be unionized, but as an RA I didn't want to get sucked into a bad-deal union that lined the pockets of Education Minnesota at our expense).

Anyway, the PIRG canvassers describe in the story should have had the opportunity to unionize, and they didn't get it, largely because of legal means employed by the nonprofit to enable them to fire the organizers.  How could this work? 

"We've all come to realize," Christian [one of the organizers] said to me, referring to both the firings and the long months yet to come, "that our nation's labor laws are simply not designed to protect employees from employers who resort to measures as self-destructive as what the Fund was willing to do to prevent our union."

It's interesting.  After reading it, I felt like telling the next canvasser who comes to my door, "Forget the donations.  Here's twenty bucks, go pay your rent with it."

Minimalist coconut chicken egg drop soup.

Ouch.  I am coming out of a migraine, which calls for comfort food.  And I don't feel like doing much.  Luckily, I have some broth going since Saturday night in the crockpot, the remains of that night's grocery-store rotisserie chicken. 

I scooped some of the boiling broth out of the pot with my soup mug and added 1 beaten egg, stirring to break up the strands as they cooked in the hot broth.  Then I filled the mug to the top with canned coconut milk.  Add a few shakes each of vinegar, soy sauce, and Thai fish sauce and I'm set.  (The coconut milk even brought it down to sipping temperature.)

But wait!  There are a few shreds of the roast chicken left in the fridge.  Add those, too.

Sure, I could take a few more minutes and add lime juice, or sliced mushrooms, or minced ginger.  But take a look at the kitchen:  I only dirtied two bowls and a fork (I drank the soup, I didn't spoon it).  Tasty, a quick energy boost, and low carb.

Original Sin: positive or negative?

Tongue in cheek --- I don't mean "good" or "bad," but is it something added or something subtracted?

Pontificator (who just celebrated his first Mass as a Catholic Priest after converting from Anglicanism --- congratulations!)  posts a citation from John Henry Newman about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, i.e., the doctrine that Mary was from the first moment of her life free from sin.  I was struck by Newman's characterization of the differences between Catholics' and Protestants' concepts of original sin:

Our doctrine of original sin is not the same as the Protestant doctrine. “Original sin,” with us, cannot be called sin, in the mere ordinary sense of the word “sin;” it is a term denoting Adam’s sin as transferred to us, or the state to which Adam’s sin reduces his children; but by Protestants it seems to be understood as sin, in much the same sense as actual sin.

We, with the Fathers, think of it as something negative, Protestants as something positive.

Protestants hold that it is a disease, a radical change of nature, an active poison internally corrupting the soul, infecting its primary elements, and disorganizing it...

[B]y original sin we mean, as I have already said, something negative, viz., this only, the deprivation of that supernatural unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on their first formation,—deprivation and the consequences of deprivation.

Newman goes on to explain how the "negative" view of original sin, plus the ancient understanding of Mary as the "new Eve," leads naturally to a position that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not unreasonable.

I realize that I have always had an unconscious acceptance of Original Sin as "stain," i.e., something added to the soul.   So what if I try to change my philosophy towards it, so that it becomes a kind of emptiness, primarily a cavity to be filled rather than primarily a spot to be washed away?

A number of interesting distinctions follow.  For one, it removes the mistaken idea of Christian doctrine that is sometimes phrased "we are judged because of Adam's sin."  It means, rather, that Adam's sin took something away from us, something we need to reach God where He is (a chasm overcome by His coming to where we are).

It rings truer to me to assert that our babies are conceived with a deficiency than to assert that they pick up in the womb some kind of infection of the soul.  Such an idea transforms the sacraments.  (However, the idea of baptism as a "washing" is so common from the earliest traditions that we'd be ill-advised to throw it out --- surely there's something to that symbolism too.)

Yes, "the lamb of God ... takes away the sins of the world."  But this refers to actual sins, no?  It's plural (peccata) and original sin is always singular (peccatum), unless I'm mistaken.

The idea of original-sin-as-negative also helps guard against the heresy that concupiscence is "meme" rather than "gene" --- that is, that the tendency to sin spreads from person to person through culture rather than through human reproduction, a tempting heresy to be sure.  (And not much more than re-warmed Pelagianism.)

Lully, lullay.

This weekend, again on account of Our Lady of Guadalupe, we heard The Coventry Carol at Mass.  I'm reprinting last year's post:

Today at Mass during the Offertory (inexplicably; this is Advent) we sang Lullay, lullay, thou little tiny child, a.k.a. "The Coventry Carol" after its tune.

You don't hear that one very often outside of church, and not really very much in church, as lovely as the tune is.  (Here's a link to the tune at Oremus.org --- link plays music.)  I sing it only with great difficulty, myself.  How strange and haunting:  the lullaby of the grieving mothers of Bethlehem, on the day that Herod slaughtered the Holy Innocents:  the carol that accompanies the Flight into Egypt, and is its dark other side.

Lully, lullay, thou little tiny child, bye, bye, lully, lullay.

O sisters too, how may we do, for to preserve this day / this poor youngling for whom we sing?  Bye, bye, lully, lullay.

Lully, lullay, thou little tiny child, bye, bye, lully, lullay.

Herod the king, in his raging, charged he hath this day / his men of might in his own sight, all young children to slay.

Lully, lullay, thou little tiny child, bye, bye, lully, lullay.

Then woe is me, poor child, for thee!  And every morn and day / for thy parting nor say nor sing 'Bye, bye, lully, lullay.'

Lully, lullay, thou little tiny child, bye, bye, lully, lullay.

I remember hearing the carol as a child and not really absorbing anything other than the refrain.  I always thought it was a lullaby for the Baby Jesus:  what other "thou little tiny child" is there to sing about at Christmastime?  I didn't know about them, and they have disappeared these days from our Christmas story, but... some fifteenth-century English tune-smith did remember the mothers of the forgotten little ones of Bethlehem, and we should be thankful for him.

The Christmas story is indeed a joyful one, but in the midst of it there is a great terror and sadness.  December 28th is the Feast of the Holy Innocents:  remember it, and sing Lully, lullay.

(Matthew 2:13-18:  Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the Child and His mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you: for Herod is about to search for the Child, to destroy Him." And he rose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son."Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation:  Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled because they were no more.")

UPDATE:  It's possible that the Coventry Carol was chosen because this upcoming weekend [remember, I posted this originally in 2005], in honor of Our Lady of Guadelupe's feast Monday, our parish is hosting a special pro-life Mass. 

Tagged with the birthday meme.

Rich Leonardi tags me:

The Rules:

1) Go to Wikipedia.
2) In the search box, type your birth month and day but not the year.
3) List three events that happened on your birthday.
4) List two important birthdays and one death.
5) One holiday or observance (if any).

Events:

1582 - Due to the implementation of the Gregorian calendar this day does not exist in this year in Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain.   

I first read that in a "Big Book of Facts" I had as a kid and it always fascinated me.  Everyone went straight from October 4th to the 15th.

1921 - Baseball: The World Series was broadcast on the radio for the first time.

It figures.  In my family, when I was growing up, we had a tradition that on yor birthday, you got to ride in the front seat of the car, you got to have your favorite food for dinner, and you got to choose what the family watched on TV that evening.  Except I never got to pick the TV show
because the playoffs were always on.  Boo hoo!  (Well, it seemed like a horrible injustice at the time.)

1969 - The first broadcast of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Speaking of TV, this is a milestone, don't you agree.

Births: 

• 1882 - Robert Goddard, American rocket scientist (d. 1945)
• Václav Havel, playwright and President of the Czech Republic

(what, you wanted I should highlight Teresa Heinz Kerry?)

Deaths:  1938 - Saint Faustina Polish religious (b. 1905)

As of 2000, my birthday is her feast day. 

I'd like to count that as the "holiday," but if I can't, I'm stuck with International World Teachers' Day.  Give your favorite teacher a Certificate of Redundancy Certificate for that one!

Tag: Valerie, Meira V., DIH

The horror of canon-law footnotes.

Ed Peters makes it simple, with his solaranite-powered guide to the footnotes of the 1917 Code.

Be sure to check out the captions:

When attempting to acquire a new skill, whether it's making scary claw-hands or deciphering citations to Gratian's Decree, try to find someone with experience who can show you how to develop your skill more quickly and accurately.

And the Latin jokes, too.

Motion and meaning.

Rich Leonardi handily predicts that a bishop's pastoral visit to Africa will result in commentary praising liturgical dancing.  Then he posts a picture of silly American liturgical dancers.

Just because liturgical dance is silly here doesn't mean it isn't good in other places.  Conversely, the existence of truly worshipful liturgical dance in other countries, if it indeed exists, does not make it a good idea in American parishes (except maybe those composed largely of immigrants from places of the former type).

Liturgical dance done here doesn't spring from the heart of our culture as a genuine act of worship. It's imposed on us.

That's a big difference.

Nor do we recognize any kind of body motions that we could call "dance" as signifying any sacredness.

And it's not because "the church recognize[s]" that "people were going to move their body and that was going to lead them into sin," as someone said once, and as Rich quotes them in another post.

We do have body motions that we recognize as sacred or that we invest with meaning. You can tell their authenticity in our cultural context by seeing where they are copied, outside of church, by people wanting to import an air of the sacred.

Think of the solemn procession (much used in civil ceremonies, graduations, etc). Think of the sign of the cross and its resemblance to, say, placing your hand over your heart to honor the flag. Think of the ringing of bells. Or rising from your seat in the presence of a respected person.

These aren't cultural signifiers of the sacred because they are used in church.  They are used in church because they signify the sacred.