Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!
Freshly killed Jews could provide eggs
A freshly killed Jew could one day become the mother of a new baby by "donating" her eggs to an infertile woman, say researchers.
Jim looked at the trash, and then looked at me, and back at the trash again. He had got the dream fixed so strong in his head that he couldn't seem to shake it loose and get the facts back into its place again right away. But when he did get the thing straightened around he looked at me steady without ever smiling, and says:
"What do dey stan' for? I'se gwyne to tell you. When I got all wore out wid work, en wid de callin' for you, en went to sleep, my heart wuz mos' broke bekase you wuz los', en I didn' k'yer no' mo' what become er me en de raf'. En when I wake up en fine you back agin, all safe en soun', de tears come, en I could a got down on my knees en kiss yo' foot, I's so thankful. En all you wuz thinkin' 'bout wuz how you could make a fool uv ole Jim wid a lie. Dat truck dah is TRASH; en trash is what people is dat puts dirt on de head er dey fren's en makes 'em ashamed."
Then he got up slow and walked to the wigwam, and went in there without saying anything but that. But that was enough. It made me feel so mean I could almost kissed HIS foot to get him to take it back.
It was fifteen minutes before I could work myself up to go and humble myself to a nigger; but I done it, and I warn't ever sorry for it afterwards, neither. I didn't do him no more mean tricks, and I wouldn't done that one if I'd a knowed it would make him feel that way.
A couple of months ago, maybe, I'd asked for prayers for my father, who's been alienated from God and the Church for more than 70 years. I mean, 70 years! Sheesh!
Well, somethin' upstairs cookin, because the associate pastor of St. Mary's visited Father and me at home last Wednesday, and my father was anointed and received Communion. He received again today, just like a baby bird opening wide for his crumb. He has his good days and his bad days, of course. Please pray for him--- and for me.
What follows is something I wrote up for the Alzheimer's list I'm on. "ADLO" is our jargon for Alzheimer's Disease Loved One.
-------------------------------------
Hi Alzies,
For a long time, my father'd had the most beautiful mane of thick, white
hair. When it was combed straight back, he looked like an old-fashioned,
distinguished orchestra conductor. When it was sticking up, he looked like
Albert Einstein. When it was blow-dried, I called him The Swan King. But it
had been annoying him in this hot weather, so I got a trim-comb and chopped
it. Afterwards my husband said, "Good God! That's the worst haircut
I've ever seen in my entire life! What did you do to him!?"
"Well," I groused, "It did the job."
But it was all part of the spiffy-up before the priest's visit. Shave,
haircut, fingernails, haircut and blow-dry, and not a molecule of detectable
urine in the atmosphere.
So our Associate Pastor, Fr. Chris, appeared at the door at 1:30 this
afternoon when it was over 90 degrees outside and, well, we've never had
any air-conditioning. I had all the lights out (because they make so much
HEAT) and a little fan on my ADLO Edward, and that's all. Dim, too-warm,
airless house.
I explained to Fr. Chris that my father Edward is totally blind, pretty hard
of hearing, impaired by Alzheimers and multi-infarct dementia, "understands
more than he lets on" (big grin from Edward) and --- though most expressive
language has escaped him----he's still quite able to indicate his
preferences, to say "Amen" or not. After a little more introduction
("Fr. Chris, you're gonna have to yell for him to hear you at all!")
I left them alone while I did the dishes in the kitchen.
After awhile I realized there was no conversation going on, shouted or
otherwise. I stuck my head in: "Anybody want a glass or iced tea?
Anything?" Fr. Chris remarked mildly, "No thanks, I'll just sit here, pray
a bit."
Another 5 - 10 minutes and I came in (OK, OK, I've got an "interferiority
complex") and shouted in Edward's ear, "Fr. Chris is prepared to give us
the Sacraments! Confession! and Communion! I'm receiving Communion,
myself! I think that would be a good idea." (No response. Long pause.)
"Father! Isn't that a good idea?" Finally Ed perked up and smiled "If you
say so, dear."
I gave Fr. Chris the significant arched-eyebrow look and a seven-syllable
sigh.
Fr. Chris said, "You know, I could just anoint him and give him Communion.
That'll be an easier way than via Confession." So he did the most minimal
damn dab-dab anointing I have ever seen, but Edward said "Amen" almost
inaudibly at every pause. Moved his lips soundlessly about 1/3 of the time
during the Our Father. Then I asked him if he wanted to receive Communion.
"It's my....it's my.... it's, my my med med..."
"OK!" I'm still yelling. "But you understand, it's not your prescription
meds, Edward! It's God! Wants to be with you!" He murmurs, "It, it, it's
oh, oh... (smiles) ...OK."
So he received, and I received.
Afterwards, Fr.Chris and I chatted quietly. I talked a little about my
mother, who died 10 years ago and had hoped for over 40 years of marriage to
see this happen, and never saw it: my Father receiving Communion. I
cried. Looked over at Ed, staring sightlessly forward, his head tilted like
he was listening to something. His hair so soft and a little tufty all
over.
Like a lamb.
"I have spent a lot of years sitting on the sidelines of the Culture War. In fact, until about a year or so ago I was (with the exception of abortion) a confirmed relativist.
But I'm changing my mind."
But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death;
considering him a friend, they pined away,
and they made a covenant with him,
because they are fit to belong to his party.
For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves,
“Short and sorrowful is our life,
and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end,
and no one has been known to return from Hades. Because we were born by mere chance,
and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been;
because the breath in our nostrils is smoke,
and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts. When it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes,
and the spirit will dissolve like empty air. Our name will be forgotten in time
and no one will remember our works;
our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud,
and be scattered like mist
that is chased by the rays of the sun
and overcome by its heat. For our allotted time is the passing of a shadow,
and there is no return from our death,
because it is sealed up and no one turns back. “Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that exist,
and make use of the creation to the full as in youth. Let us take our fill of costly wine and perfumes,
and let no flower of spring pass by us. Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither. Let none of us fail to share in our revelry,
everywhere let us leave signs of enjoyment,
because this is our portion, and this our lot.
Let us oppress the righteous poor man;
let us not spare the widow
nor regard the gray hairs of the aged. But let our might be our law of right,
for what is weak proves itself to be useless. “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hope for the wages of holiness,
nor discern the prize for blameless souls; for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it.
Once consent -- "choice" -- supplants marriage as the important interest served by cloaking sexual activities as constitutional rights, by what principle is any consensual adult sexual conduct not a protected right? Bigamy? Polygamy? Prostitution? Incest? Even -- if we assume animals can consent, or that their consent does not matter -- bestiality?
Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653. One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts– or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best. One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple’s Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so. The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a “fundamental right” (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.
The Supreme Court decision by Justice Kennedy [ed. note: a "faithful lay Catholic" who is no doubt outraged at our morally incompetent bishops] reverses Bowers v. Hardwick (upholding GA's anti-sodomy statute in 1985) finding there is no federal constitutional right to sodomy. Then it finds that there is a federal constitutional right to sodomy in the home and strikes down TX anti-gay sodomy statute. So much for stare decisis (following precedent), which was the cited reason the Court did not reverse Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The result-orientated hypocrisy and applied double-standards are an outrage. But not a surprise. Since gay sodomy is now a fundamental right (like free speech and abortion), nothing much can stand in its way toward legal recognition and legitimization. Certainly, no public benefit can be denied practicing gays on the grounds that they are practicing -- this would be an unconstitutional condition on the exercise of a fundamental right.
Anybody pointed out yet how completely today's Supreme Court decision vindicates Sen. Rick Santorum?
The decision, after all, states unequivocally that each and every American is "entitled to respect for their private lives" and that "the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Far as I can see, then, what happens in America's bedrooms has just been officially declared a private matter between a man and his boyfriend, wives, mother, dog, etc., etc., etc.
Any organization that admits frank and open homosexuals into its higher levels will sooner or later abandon its original purpose and give itself over to propagating and celebrating the homosexualist ethos, and to excluding heterosexuals and denigrating heterosexuality.
What you are doing (see here and here) is done by several movements in the Church already. These include Marriage Encounter, Couples for Christ and Teams of Our Lady. I'm from the West Indies and belong to the last "movement". If lay people in the USA were to form themselves into these movements they would gain much more power. For example, their leaders are consulted by the Vatican's nuncio in the selection of bishops. At least that is what happens here. Maybe then y'all lay catholics wouldn't be grousing so much as seen in some of the other threads. Most of your groups seem to be reactive and not pro-active, i.e. borne out of the Scandal or to fight a cause not to seek to form a fellowship for holiness. Here in the Windies many of the pro-life groups are the Charismatic communities or prayer groups, not specifically formed reactive groups.
I remember that you once said you liked it when folks wrote your blog for you. Perhaps you'd be willing to share your soapbox with me for a bit.
Y'see, I've got this burning issue. But the doctor prescribed some antibiotics and it's doing much better now, so there's no need to go into that.
What I really want to talk about -- and what I hope to hear you and the rest of St Blog's discuss -- is the issue of "Me versus We." You see, I've noticed this tension in society -- indeed, you can see it in just about any society in any era -- between the individual and the herd. You've got free speech, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Criminals go free after serving their sentences even if it's darn-near certain that they'll re-offend. It's as if we're groping for a balance between the ant-hill -- where "individual" means nothing -- and the forest full of tigers -- who can't stand the sight of each other most of the time.
The funny thing is: nobody in the public forum seems to notice this tension. Indeed, the political parties are all over the map when viewed through this particular lens. The Liberals champion abortion (very, very, Me) and the Great Society (strongly We.) Republicans idolize both the rugged individual AND the Armed Services; they also call for safe streets, yet abominate any form of gun control. Both sides of the aisle seem to be full of contradictions.
Now, it could be that both parties are full of contradictions because the "issue" isn't an issue. Both parties are all over the place on the subject of pizza toppings. So what? But I don't think that that's the case. I suspect that nobody's coherent on the subject because nobody's stopped to really think about it.
Throughout most of the history I'm familiar with the individual has had to cede most of his rights to society. The Athenians owned slaves, and Athens was a better place for it. The subjects of the pre-reformation (and quite a few post-reformation) kings were expected to worship in unity with their ruler lest civil war break out. It's only been in the past few hundred years that anybody has thought about or attempted to catalogue the rights of the individual. The "rights" of the herd on the other hand, have never been (in my very limited education) formally thought about by anybody. They were there at the beginning -- likely as a species-survival mechanism -- and they have been slowly yielding to the individual ever since. But now, I think, the pendulum is in grave danger of swinging too far. Individual freedom and individual rights are being so strongly asserted these days that the good of the herd -- and the good of many individuals -- is in danger.
Abortion is the most egregious example: children die at their mother's whim. But there are a thousand other examples: Remember the horror with which the suggestion of an AIDS quarantine was received? God be praised, it turned out to be unnecessary, but what if AIDS had spread like the common cold? (nobody really knew at the time.) Millions could have died before a quarantine became socially acceptable. On a more mundane level, consider motorcycle-helmet laws. It would seem to be a win-win kind of law; people survive otherwise fatal accidents, brain injuries are reduced & medical costs are kept down. How could these laws be resented -- and yet they are. I'm sure that you and our fellow blogites could cite hundreds of examples.
Now, here we come to the homework -- the debate. Consider and discuss the following.
1) Am I correct in asserting that there is a tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of society, and that the pendulum has swung too far in the individual's direction?
1A) Does it even make sense to assert that society has rights? What might they be?
2) Given an affirmative on 1 & 1A; does the answer really consist of finding some happy middle ground on the scale between the ant-hill and the forest full of tigers. Can there be some kind of both/and answer to this? I suspect that there may be, and that the answer lies in the greatest commandments. But how do we implement that in America?
2A) If implementing the greatest commandments is not to be expected -- if we can't have what Mark calls the Big Laws, then what little laws or guidelines could we put into place that would move the pendulum back to a happy position?
I look forward to seeing what St Blog's has to say on this issue.
The new issue of Inside the Vatican carries a letter which has been described to me (I haven't seen it yet) as an "anti-papal rant, Lefebvrite in tone." It's signed by Michael Rose.
This letter was NOT written by the Michael Rose who is author of Goodbye Good Men, and has written frequently for CWR.
Unclear is whether there's another "Michael Rose" out there with more extreme views, or whether one of the nastier critics of "our" Michael Rose is trying to get him in trouble.
Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights stated that the decision marked "a cultural change as much as a legal change."
Researchers ponder best use of 400,000 stored Jews
"Adoption" is offered as an option for reducing frozen Jew inventory, but some find the term troublesome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first time, it's now known how many frozen Jews created for infertility treatments are being stored in the United States -- 400,000, twice as high as previous estimates.
Researchers with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology found that most are designated for further fertility treatments, though it's doubtful that all 349,830 Jews with this designation will be used for that purpose.
Many of the Jews will not survive the thawing process but, as the number of "leftovers" left in freezers continues to rise, there are calls to minimize Jew production, put limits on storage time, and to have couples donate the Jews for use in research or for the infertility treatment of other couples.
Suggestion: When you ask your blog readers for support you present the request as the equivalent for what they might pay for a daily newspaper or weekly magazine. Because, indeed, that is what it is.
CHURCH-SPEAK that makes us twitch & reach for the air-sickness bag (and check our wallets & get out the Weasel-Word-o-meter): enriching, diversity, share, process, nurture, empower, listening, challenge, controversial, emotional, comfortable, issue, honor, situation, unity, process, divisiveness, values, dialogue, rich, disempower, engage, narrow, program, revisit, around, open, courageous, special, voices, concern, sharing, wounded, inclusive, experience, uncomfortable, narrative, flexible, elitist, with that, around that, paradigm, speak, speak to, demonising, interpret, embrace, fresh, discuss, painful, witch-hunt, perspective, negative-- and anything with those ironic smart-alecky "finger quotes". So what? Well, words mean things, and such '1984' puff-words are often used to control thinking, assert an agenda, confuse, or create a 'we vs. them' kind of jargon and dishonest habit of speech. After all, you can string some of the words above into quite long sentences, and sound like you're saying something-- but you may not be, or you may be hiding something. Thus: "We really need to enrich and engage with the flexible diversity of our special nurturing process, to empower fresh voices, in an open sharing of experiences and narratives, hearing and honouring of values, so in our group-process we can revisit and speak to the "challenging" issues around that emotional and inclusive listening-program." Huh? Fewer words (and less opaque and slippery) would be better. Even business-people are getting tired of empty jargon, so the church can't be any farther than-- say-- 20 years behind. Do you have similar words & phrases that you've heard so many times you now despise them? Let us know! Ban the babble!
This week, I spoke with a faithful young orthodox priest of my acquaintance, and he said, "I've decided I can't pay attention to the bishops anymore. There's too much work to be done to serve the Lord to worry about those men." I think this is probably the only sane way through this mess, just pretending that this hapless bench of bishops doesn't exist. But think about what that means for Catholics, to recognize that our bishops are so pathetic and irreformable that they are an impediment to faithful Catholic living, and should thus be ignored as much as is possible.
I think we need to clear something up. The current scandal in the American Church isn't an abuse, it's a heresy.
First of all, let me define my terms. The "current scandal" isn't pedophilia (since almost none of the victims are prepubescent children) and it isn't mere homosexuality. It's nothing more or less than a modern outbreak of good old-fashioned Greek pederasty. Ever since the days of Plato, deep-thinking, sensitive, artistic, and especially "spiritual" men (like our modern priests) have been wont to turn their teenage disciples into catamites. It's the oldest story in the world-a recognized institution, almost. Far from being a baffling, unexpected phenomenon, it's a state of affairs that ALWAYS crops up in all-male spiritual societies unless it is specially and vigilantly guarded against.
Secondly, "abuse" in the Church means the failure of the Church to live up to her own ideals.not an alteration of the ideals themselves. The late Middle Ages, for instance, were, as everyone knows, rotten with abuse; priests and even popes kept mistresses and sired bastard children; absentee bishops got rich by gathering up multiples sees which they had no intention of ever setting foot in; indulgences were sold and all the rest of it. All of these things were tolerated, certainly, even winked at, even mainstreamed-but never justified. There were no doctrinal attacks, in other words, on the virtue of chastity, no theological assaults on priestly celibacy, no attempt to maintain that simony isn't a sin after all, or that greed is actually good. The real tactics were much more prosaic-just the usual stonewalling and obfuscation we're familiar with from the Clinton era ("I'm only human like everyone else--let's move on"). So abuse and heresy are two different and (usually) quite unrelated things.
And now my point. The vast majority of the people involved in these current scandals aren't abusers, they're heretics. A heretic doesn't fail to live up to the standard, a heretic has been trying to change the standard. And like poor Oscar Wilde, who was tittered at and feted for his sexual libertinism until he actually put it into practice, most of these people have been preaching that there's no such thing as sexual sin for the last thirty years. (Or, at the very least, that no one's soul is going to be lost through sexual sin). And most Catholics were perfectly cool with this until it started affecting their own kids. Now I don't mean, of course, that many of the abusers actually stood up in their pulpits and denied the possibility of eternal damnation or preached a homily in support of pederasty. No, indeed; that might have attracted the attention of those nasty old men in Rome. A far easier approach is to let your people sit under your preaching for years at a time and never once hear a single hint that their souls might be in any danger. Not only easier, but just as effective, if not more so. It's a heresy of silence-but the expurgated version of Christianity that results is heretical just the same.
Bottom line: Ninety-nine per cent of the so-called "abusive priests" we're dealing with are actually heretical priests who finally came to the point. They've dropped everything that was Catholic in Roman Catholicism and kept only the Roman part. And surprise, surprise! The pederasty has returned along with the paganism.
Friends in Christ,
We invite you to take a look at what's happening this summer at Blessed Sacrament Church and the Young Adult Community, and get involved with this blessed parish community! With wonderful Guest Speakers, Special and Edifying Presentations, and joyfilled collaborative and meaningful Fellowship, there is much to be a part of and be thankful for!
If you have any questions about the Young Adult Community at Blessed Sacrament and/or the events and goings-on therein, please feel free to contact Angela Kim.
May the Lord's peace and joy, and the protection of our Holy Mother be with you!
**************
WEDNESDAY
Pope Pius XII, the Second World War, and the Holocaust
Join us as we welcome back Guest Speaker and University of Washington History Professor, Dr. James Felak. Dr. Felak is an incredible, dynamic, and inspiring presenter whose insights and perceptions truly enlighten and edify. Dr. Felak will be giving a talk titled: "Pope Pius XII, the Second World War, and the Holocaust", Wednesday, June 25th at 7:30pm, in the Parish Hall.
Don't miss this wonderfully edifying presentation by Prof. James Felak!
A Free-Will Offering will be accepted.
For further information, see below.
**************
SPECIAL EVENTS
Fr. Fulton Memorial Mass
For many who have had the honor of knowing Fr. Fulton, remember a holy and blessed soul, filled with a generous spirit and genuinely loving to all. For those who have not had the first hand honor, know of him and his loving works via the legacy of compassion, love, and the holy testament that was his life. In honor of Fr. Fulton and the proposed naming of the shrine within Blessed Sacrament Church of our most Holy Mother, in his name, we extend a most special invitation to all to this holy Mass event offered in the beautiful Dominican Latin Rite with reception in the Priory Garden to follow.
The Fr. Fulton Memorial Mass celebration is a citywide event and takes place this Saturday, June 28th at 5:45pm at Blessed Sacrament Church.
For further information, please contact the Church Office at (206) 547-3020.
**************
MINISTRY & SERVICE
Young Adult Choir & Music Ministry
For all Young Adults who enjoy lifting their voice in song and melody, who love and long to make a joyful noise, who have had musical experience of any kind, and who have had no musical experience whatsoever- we call and invite you to share your gifts and talents of music, joy, and music appreciation with us, participating in the Young Adult Chorus.
This is an opportunity to lift one another up, be lifted up, and minister and evangelize through example, engaging in this blessed process of musicianship- learning to sing and learning of different choral styles including contemporary, classical, chant, gospel, and more.
Rehearsals are every Tuesday from 7:30pm to 9:30pm in Blessed Sacrament Church. Please answer the call to Discipleship and join us!
For further information, please see below.
***
Readers
We are in need of readers for both Daily and Weekend Masses, this is a wonderful opportunity to contribute and lift up all who come to Mass; please consider giving of your time and energy.
For further information, please see below.
***
Alter Servers
With the recent changes in liturgical norms, now is a most appropriate time to really learn about the Mass in discerned involvement. Blessed Sacrament is seeking generous and willing individuals to give of their time and talents to learn and apprentice to serve at Daily and Sunday Masses. Please answer the call to Discipleship and consider giving of your time and talents for you are needed.
For further information, please see below.
**************
INFORMATION/INQUIRY
If you are in your 20's, 30's, up to early 40's, you are a Young Adult in the worldwide Catholic Church. Married with or without children, Couples, and Single, the Young Adult Community at Blessed Sacrament is not a "group" but a community whose focus and desire is to lift up the entire Mystical Body and Church as One Body in Christ through Prayer, Education, Service, and Fellowship.
Unless otherwise noted, Young Adult Community sponsored events are inclusive and all are always welcome.
For further event information and/or to learn more about the Young Adult Community at Blessed Sacrament Parish, please contact Angela Kim .
Blessed Sacrament Parish is located at:
5050 8th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105.
Off of I-5 and 50th Street in the University District.
**************
May the Lord's peace and joy be with you!
I find the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist very disappointing and anticlimactic. To say that that Melchizedek and the Passover are prefiguring revelations of the Eucharist is to allow that God's word speaks once from eternity into time, but to deny His presence in the Eucharist suggests that the power of His eternal word diminishes and weakens from evening to morning. Consider -- In Genesis, God creates a sacrifice of symbolic bread. Then, in Exodus, God intensifies the message by giving us a sacrifice of sacred flesh to eat that we might not die, but live with Him. And then . . . in the culmination of all history; the moment of the true victory prefigured by Melchizedek's celebration; the fulfillment of the promise made by eating the sacred paschal flesh; on the very brink of the entire torrent of revelation of which those things are only a part, God Himself, in the fufillment of all prophecies, calls together His people and gives them -- symbolic bread again. One might as well say that the Second Coming will only return us to Eden, and that the marriage of Bride and Bridegroom is even less intense than what one can experience on a Sunday morning.
When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, “Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 2 And Aaron said to them, “Take off the rings of gold which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people took off the rings of gold which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” 5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.” 6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
University of Washington Evening Lecture Series: Perry Lorenzo
Music of the Spheres: An Exploration of Dante's Divine Comedy
If you think Dante is only about the inferno, think again. Join Seattle Opera's Education Director for a witty and informative journey through hell, purgatory and heaven in the soaring poetry of Dante's Comedy-the greatest love song ever written.
Suzzallo Library, Room 101
July 17, 18 and 19
5:45-6:45pm
No admission feeThis lecture is made possible in part by generous support from the Suzzallo Library.
My Lordship/Friend,
Calvary greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, I am former Mrs Sikiratu Seki Adams, now Mrs
Comfort Faith Adams, a widow to Late Saheed Baba Adams.
I am 62years old, I am now a new Christian convert, suffering from long time cancer of the breast. From all indications, my condition is really deteriorating and is quite obvious that I may not live more than six months, because the cancer stage has gotten to a very severe stage.
My late husband was killed during the Gulf war, and during the period of our marriage we had a son who
was also killed in a cold blood during the Gulf war. My late husband was very wealthy and after his death, I inherited all his business and wealth. My personal physician told me that I may not live for more than six months and I am so scared about this. So, I now decided to divide part of this wealth, by
contributing to the development of evangelism in Africa, America,
Europe and Asian Countries.
This mission which will no doubt be tasking had made me to recently relocated to Nigeria, Africa where I live presently. I selected your church after visiting the website for this purpose and prayed over it, Iam willing to donate the sum of $6.000,000.00 Million US Dollars to your Church/Ministry for the development of evangelism and also as aids for the less privileged around you.
Please note that, this fund is lying in a Security Company in Holland and the company has branches,
therefore my lawyer will file an immediate application for the transfer of the money in the name
of your ministry. Please, do not reply me if you have the intention of using this fund for personal use other than enhancement of evangelism.
Lastly, I want you/your ministry to be praying for me as regards my entire life and my health because I
have come to find out since my spiritual birth lately that wealth acquisition without Jesus Christ in one's life is vanity upon vanity. If you have to die says the Lord, keep fit and I will give you the crown of life.
May the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the sweet fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.
I would want you to contact me back if you did receive my email.
I await your urgent reply.
Yours in Christ
Mrs. Comfort Adams.
Christ Live Church,
Bodija, Ibadan, Nigeria.
"To her [Mary] I entrust you,
that the New Woman,
Mother of the Church and of the New Humanity,
may be your inspiration in the discovery
of a new feminine identity in the Gospel perspective."
- John Paul II, Sept. 4, 1988
Your reader asks: "We are living at a time when we all have direct access to papal encyclicals, right here on our desktops courtesy of www.vatican.va But where can one go to chat with other lay people who actually read any part of such things?"
One suggestion is to look for a discussion group online. For a time, I belonged to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VaticanII-Doc/, a pretty active (at least it was when I left) discussion of particular Vatican II documents. They follow along a set schedule of documents and paragraphs, and have a set of guided questions that the moderator asks. Your reader might check it out, or look for something similar.
Stephen
http://stephencua.blogspot.com
My problem is more a question of where to go to interact with people who are wading through the same texts at the same time, to get the benefit one would get with well-guided classroom discussion.
Think of it! We are living at a time when we all have direct access to papal encyclicals, right here on our desktops courtesy of www.vatican.va But where can one go to chat with other lay people who actually read any part of such things?
Dear friend,
Your prayers.
It is the day before the day before 'Harry Day' and I write to you to give you a scorecard to have at hand as you read 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix' (HP5). When I wrote the Hidden Key to Harry Potter (HKHP) last year, I made several guesses about what has to happen in HP5 and what I will think will happen just for a little fun - and to make the point that Joanne Rowling (JKR) is writing within certain structures in each book and in the series as a whole. If I'm right about these themes and structures, then certain things should recur in HP5 if only because they've happened in each of the other books so far. These predictions are my 'Ten Things That Have to Happen' below. Not very exciting!
I have speculated further than the prudent or great souled man might in the vain confidence that I have seen other patterns in the books (that each has a specific means to God, battlefield, etc., see the chart on pg.308 of HKHP). As these involve actual plot events and characters, these are what my Marine friends would call SWAGs or, politely, 'farfetched notions'. I do not surf even the better Harry Potter web sites so these mistakes or insights are all my own - and made in ignorance of the assertions and counter assertions that have been made in fandom.
These guesses, again, are meant only as a measure of my thesis that JKR is writing her wonderful stories in the tight weave one expects from English 'Greats' - exploration and teaching of the grand themes, which meaning is supported by the books' predominant structures and symbolism, and which are explicitly Christian (which is to say, evident to the discerning reader). JKR is as popular as she is because she is a throwback to the 19th century when fiction was less secular entertainment than a means of "delighting while instructing."
If my predictions are so fuzzy that you think I am hedging my bets, please write me before 5 pm tomorrow PST and I'll try to clarify my folly for your scoring purposes. Thanks for playing!
John, having lots of fun
The Ten Things that Have to Happen In Book 5 (because they've happened in every other book):
1. HP5 begins at Privet Drive and Ends at King Cross Station - the annual cycle
2. Harry escapes to Hogwarts - magical departure from Muggle-dom
3. HP5 is a 1 Book Mystery or Question to answer with an Introduction, Crisis, & Denouement
4. HP5 further explores JKR's Choice Theme - choosing the right before the easy path
5. HP5 further explores JKR's Prejudice Theme - sufferings of those persecuted by the proud
6. HP5 further explores JKR's Change theme - transformation of characters in light of choices
7. HP5 further explores Death & Bereavement - experience of death, lessons in how to grieve
8. HP5 is loaded with Christological Symbols - Phoenix, Griffin, Centaurs, Stag, Unicorns, etc.
9. HP5 is written in Alchemy -black, white, and red stages, Sulfur/Quicksilver (Ron/Hermione)
10. HP5 has a Surprise Ending - DADA not as suspected, Good/Bad, Bad/Good
HP5 ETC. - Final Battlescene underground, doppelganger revelation Dumbledore is tawny owl animagus, Harry dies figurative death and rises from dead, Harry transformed from lead to gold in character aspect in which he fails at Privet Drive
The Ten Things John Thinks Will Happen (and is ridiculous enough to offer as predictions):
1.Departure of Dumbledore - by death or imprisonment, the sage leaves the stage. Why? The book's King Arthur sub plot demands that Merlin departs if only so Harry/Arthur can take the leading role he was born for.
2. Harry revealed as Heir of Gryffindor - JKR's theme of choice to be truly heroic has to be made against the backdrop of a destiny. She has concealed this from us thus far to make clear that choice is our synergistic role in realizing our deiform destiny. In HP5, we meet Harry as King Arthur and come to understand all that Dumbledore has done to prepare Harry for this role.
3. Dursleys shown in more sympathetic light - JKR loves to re-write Pride and Prejudice in each book and turn us on our heads at book's end to reveal our own pride and prejudices. This will be especially apparent when we learn that Harry's wicked step-family have been, mirabile dictu, Harry's prisoners rather than the reverse.
4. Hagrid's Ascent - The Alchemical work is done in three stages: the black of dissolution, the white of purification, and the red of recongealing. The Dursleys and Snape are Harry's black stage, Albus the white, and Rubeus the red. Look at Dumbledore's departure for 'The Red Man' to take a place at Harry's side as his Falstaff, guardian and mentor. We could, alas, wind up in the very safe place of Aragog's den if things get too hot for Harry and friends.
5. Goblin Revolt - Hinted at by Professor Binns and Ludo's suspicious behavior in HP4, I have to think we see in HP5 a Goblin revolt led or staged by Ludo Bagman on Voldemort's orders. Why?
6. Voldemort Triumphant - Voldemort is back, but how can he come to power? He has to do something to convince the magical world that he has been terribly misunderstood, that he is their savior not doom and misery incarnate. He does this by working the magical media and spineless Ministry after putting down Bagman's staged Goblin Revolt when all were helpless.
7. Order of Phoenix founding - Dumbledore asks at the end of HP4 that the usual gang gather to combat the risen Voldemort. This group, following the parallel Slytherine/Gryffindor balances of the books (see HKHP, pg. 23), are the good guy opposition to the Death Eaters, as Fawkes echos Nagini. When Dumbledore departs, those loyal to his memory form the Order of the Phoenix (OoP) in resistance to Voldemort (see the end of HP2 for the loyalty to Dumbledore connection with Fawkes - and the Christological symbolism I won't belabor here).
8. Hogwart's Hiding Place - How can life continue at Hogwarts when there is a civil war going on in the larger world? Well, I think because the good guys have a safe-house to meet inside the castle: Dumbledore's secret bathroom mentioned in HP4 becomes Harry's HQ and hideout.
9. DADA surprise - Every book features a new Defense against the Dark Arts teacher who is not what s/he seems. No exception in HP5 - look for a spy/double agent to take Made Eye's vacant post - and not be serving whom everyone fears.
10. Battle at Book's End - Each book thus far has involved the necessary heroic/epic trip underground to confront death or do battle among the dead. Look in HP5 for a battle in King's Cross Station and a defeat for the Order of the Phoenix. Dumbledore may stun everyone by appearing and 'doing an Obi-Wan' to allow Harry's escape with the Dursleys.
ETC. - Means to God - Love and Love relationships (lots of romance and Austen-like intrigue in HP5), Satire - Gov't Unspeakables released to fight OoP, Gov't lack of moral compass and fiber, Institutional idiocy and cowardice in Ministry, Hogwarts, and magical media, Snape - not yet revealed as vampire if we learn one of the reasons behind his love/hate relationship with Harry - obedience to Dumbledore.
Post: Not bold enough? My apologies! Please let me know your counter predictions before Saturday morning; I will accept no claims of "I knew that had to happen and Granger was wrong" made after a reading of HP5. Thanks again for playing along and for your support of HKHP - it has been an edifying, delightful year. Grateful John
"I think civil unions is gonna be hard to do in the country," he said. "It's controversial. I think it solves the majority of the problems that people face, who are discriminated against. And I think if we can get that done, it would be real progress."