Perfection of the Soul

I've been reading a very good book for the last few days called The Spiritual Combat and a Treatise on Peace of Soul, by Dom Lorenzo Scupoli (available through TAN).

The text has been around since the late 16th century, and is said to have been a favorite of St. Francis de Sales - I can see why.

This book, combined with St. Francis de Sales' Introduction to the Devout Life, ought to be required reading for everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike (any non-Catholic who reads these books and takes to heart the principles taught would not be able to remain outside the Catholic Church for very long).

Spiritual Combat is an appropriate title, if somewhat misleading. It deals with the perfection of the soul, and how to attain to that perfection. Here are a few of the principles and teachings that I'm reading about ...

People mistakenly confuse spiritual perfection and true piety with the external devotions they perform. We think that if we pray 15 decades of the Rosary a day, say all sorts of novenas, attend Holy Mass whenever we can, etc., that we're attaining (or have attained) perfection.

But the problem is that these external actions and devotions are meant to effect a change in our interior, in our souls - and so many people lose sight of this. This is probably why St. John of the Cross, as a spiritual director, was in the habit of taking external devotions away from those under his care.

Not that these things are bad, mind you. But they are meant to be tools, and when the tools get in the way and we begin to confuse the tools for the effects they are meant to produce, then the tools need to be abandoned until we recover the right perspective.

It should be, ideally, that our interior disposition - the change of our souls as we grow in love for God - will bear the fruit of external devotion.

That is to say, we should not pray the Rosary for the purpose of serving ourselves, expecting great consolations and spiritual ecstasies. We should not attend the Holy Mass expecting to have our hearts warmed and stirred.

No, we should pray the Rosary purely out of love for God and Our Lady; we should assist at Holy Mass to offer a pleasing sacrifice to God. It should all be for His honor and glory, not for the benefits we may or may not derive from these acts.

This inverted perspective that we have is exactly what tends to make us unstable. If I pray my Rosary expecting great spiritual consolations, and then I don't get what I came for, I'm more likely to become frustrated and abandon the practice altogether (or at least become less constant in my devotion).

I must confess I am still very much a novice in this regard, because I'm constantly making these mistakes. If I don't "get anything out of" praying the Rosary, I tend to think I must be doing something wrong, and I give up the practice too easily.

According to the book, a lot of the problem stems from pride. The first few chapters of the book stress in no uncertain terms just how necessary is a strong humility.

Here's an interesting question: when you fall into sin, do you react with shock and wonder how you could have done such a thing? Scupoli says you shouldn't - you shouldn't be surprised at all, if you have a healthy sense of humility and an understanding of your own weakness. Rather, you should renew your humility in those moments and say, "Yes, this is precisely the way I am, this is exactly how weak I am, and I fell into sin because I forgot just how naturally it comes to me."

It's one thing to acknowledge our weakness and dependence upon God - it's quite another thing to live as though we mean those words.

This is not to say we should abandon the Rosary, the Mass, etc. We should cling to those things, but with the understanding that they are necessary helps given to us by God precisely because we are so weak. We aren't strong enough to live by faith alone, which is why we require external devotions.

I can see the analogy when I pray with my daughter. She's too young to grasp the concepts of an Invisible God who hears her prayers, or the concept that God became Man and died for her sins. So the only way to cultivate devotion in her is to rely on tangible things: icons, statues, crucifixes, etc.

St. Louis de Montfort says something related to all of this in his The Secret of the Rosary. He says that we need not muster all of our strength when we come to prayer, in order to make sure we pray well - because we aren't capable of making ourselves ready or worthy to engage in such a sublime act. Rather, he says, it suffices to simply state our intentions and resolutions before we begin, including our intentions to not be distracted. We may not live up to those intentions or meet those resolutions as we pray, but what matters is that we intend to do so. God looks upon the heart.

I've been thinking that over a lot lately. If I'm honest with myself, I can't even really say to God "I desire to be holy." An honest examination of my heart reveals the lie - I don't desire holiness. I desire comfort, consolation, the easy path, pleasures, and material gain. The minute some slight suffering or inconvenience presents itself, I - like most people - run away and try to avoid those things. So, if I'm really being honest in prayer, I have to say to God, "I may not desire to be holy ... but I do desire to have that desire."

That's about as close as I can come. Thankfully, one of the saints (I want to say St. Augustine, or perhaps St. Ignatius Loyola) said that even the desire to desire is in itself a great grace from God.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

A Continuation of Quigley ...

LETTER FROM REY. MR. CAMPBELL.

THE RECTORY, DORCHESTER, N. B., Nov. 29.

To the Editor of the Globe:

SIR,-In last evening's issue Mr. Quigley quotes three Latin versions of Gen. iii. 15; I have a Latin version of the whole Bible, including the Apocrypha - but wanting the title-page and the date - which agrees with no one of the three quoted. I send my reading to you merely as a contribution to the literature of the discussion. On the main argument I say nothing in this communication; for it may be fairly assumed that his Lordship will make Mr. Quigley a fitting reply.

But I would like to ask whether any of your readers have a copy of the same version; and, if they have. whether they will kindly state what version it is, with the date of publication? The verse reads thus: "Praeterea inimicitiam pono inter te et Mulierem hanc similiterq; inter semen tuum et semen hujus; hoc conteret tibi caput, tu autem conteres huic calcaneum."

Yours obediently,

J. ROY CAMPBELL.


LETTER FROM MR. DAVENPORT.

IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM.

To the Editor of the Globe:

SIR,- Surely Mr. Quigley is not correct in his criticism on Genesis iii. 15. He asks somewhat indignantly why Bishop Kingdon, in his lecture did not put the real state of the question before his hearers, and tell them the dispute was not between Ipse and Ipsa, but also between Ipsum. Where then is to be found a Latin version of the Bible with Ipsum in this passage ? I have never read of it in any commentary. Jerome's old Vulgate, made direct from the Hebrew, has the masculine Ipse - the modern Vulgate in spite of this has Ipsa. Where is the Ipsum? Because the English version speaks of the "Seed of the woman " as It, it must not be supposed that the neuter occurs in the Hebrew original, or in either the Greek or Latin versions thereof. It is not true that in speaking of the promised offspring of the woman as It, the English translators rejected Ipse, as Mr. Quigley says.

The "academic aspect of the question," to borrow Mr. Quigley's phrase, stands thus: The Hebrew has a masculine pronoun followed by a masculine verb "He shall bruise." It is true that if the pronoun stood alone without the vowel-pointing, as in the old style of writing Hebrew, it could not be told without looking at the verb what was its gender. About the verb (y'shuphcah), however, there is not and never has been a doubt because it begins with the masculine affix. Therefore the translators of the modern vulgate are without excuse in adopting a feminine translation of the pronoun, and thus doing- violence to the verb, more especially as they had the grand old vulgate of Jerome before their eyes to keep them right. So plain is the Hebrew here that the Septuagint translators (who accomplished their task three centuries before the coming of Christ), while adopting a neuter word sperma for "seed" nevertheless use a masculine pronoun autos here to represent it.

Bishop Kingdon’s statement, therefore, it seems to me, is not as Mr. Quigley says, "wholly incorrect and baseless," even if his "misapprehension be simply appalling" to Mr. Quigley.

I confess that if the Bishop asserted that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was founded on a misprint, it was too bald and unqualified a statement. Many things helped to stereotype it besides this error. At the same time it must be borne in mind that this mistranslation has been long and much used in the Roman Church for the undue exaltation of the Holy Virgin, while it is very noteworthy that Pope Pius IX., when promulgating the Dogma in S. Peter's at Rome, December 8, 1854, alluded for its defence to this very text, and, moreover, afterwards set up a memorial column of the event in the city, on the top of which stands a figure of the Blessed Virgin (without the holy child, mark you, in her arms) trampling the serpent under foot. This representation of the bruising of the serpent's head by the woman, everybody knows has been for years and still is very common among Roman Catholics. Therefore it is no exaggeration to say that the modern vulgate mistranslation of Genesis iii. 15 has largely helped to smooth the way for the promulgation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.

There is one other point in Mr. Quigley's letter I cannot suffer myself to pass over unnoticed. In my opinion he would have been wiser in his own cause had he been less satirical about the neglect of the Holy Virgin by Christians outside the Roman Church. Who is to blame, let me ask, for their present attitude towards her? Who has rendered it well-nigh impossible for them to yield her her proper place and dignity as chief of saints? None other than the Roman Church herself, with her exaggerated and too often idolatrous devotions offered to her.

I must prove such a serious charge as this. I will take two well-known books, in use among Roman Catholics of all lands. "Liguori's Glories of Mary," and " The Raccolta." The first named is a book approved by the highest authorities of the Roman Church, and formally recommended to Anglo-Romans by Cardinals Wiseman and Manning. In that book are to be found such instructions as these: "Mary is our only refuge help and asylum." "Often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call upon her name, than we should be if we called on the name of Jesus, our Saviour." "Many things are asked from God and are not granted; they are asked from Mary and are obtained." "At the command of the Virgin all things obey, even God." (Imperio Virginis omnia famulantur, etiam Deus.)

"The salvation of all depends on their being favored and protected by Mary. He who is protected by Mary will be saved; he who is not, will be lost. Mary has only to speak, and her Son executes all." (See Littledale, p. 55.)

In the second book mentioned are to be found devotions to the Virgin in keeping with these impious utterances.

When on a visit to Rome, in 1880, I purchased an English copy of the "Raccolta," at the Propaganda, in order to test the accuracy of Littledale's quotations. The "Raccolta" is a popular Roman manual of indulgenced devotions. My copy is dated, Woodstock College, Maryland, 1878. About 130 out of 450 pages are devoted directly to the Virgin, while she finds mention in nearly all the devotions. The following impious acts of worship and prayer are taken from the "Second Novena in preparation for the Feast of our Lady's Nativity," p. 275 (the italics are mine): "We hail thee, dear child, and we humbly worship thy most holy body; we venerate thy sacred swaddling clothes wherewith they bound thee, the sacred cradle," &c.

Prayer: "Most lovely child, who by Thy birth has comforted the world, made glad the heavens, struck terror to hell, brought help to the fallen, &c. . . . . We pray Thee with all fervent love, be Thou born again, in spirit in our souls, through Thy most holy love; renew our fervor in Thy service, rekindle in our hearts the fire of Thy love, and bid all virtues blossom there, which may cause us to find more and more favor in Thy gracious eyes. Mary! be thou Mary to us, and may we feel the saving power of Thy sweetest name. Let it ever be our comfort to call on that great name in all our troubles; let it be our hope in dangers, our shield in temptation, and in death our last murmur."

Herein we find expressions of worship and supplication such as Christians are wont to present only to God, or the Incarnate Son, or the Holy Spirit. We could not say more at the cradle of Jesus, nor could we pay more honor to the Blessed Paraclete Himself than to beg Him to "rekindle in our hearts the fire of His love."

Now this book has on its title-page, "Published by order of His Holiness Pope Pius IX. Translation authorized and approved by the Sacred Congregation of Holy Indulgences"; while in the preface people are urged to use this book, because then they may feel perfectly assured the indulgences are all right.

The Roman Church, therefore, is thoroughly committed to this book with all its enormities.

Surely it is the duty of all lovers of "the truth as it is in Jesus," i.e., all true Catholic Christians, to come out of a church which puts its imprimatur upon such idolatrous worship as this, and it ill becomes one who accepts such extravagances to chide those who, for fear of them, fall short of their duty.

It ought to be remembered, in this connection, that the Church of England has preserved her balance well under the circumstances, and observes four feasts yearly in honor of the Holy Mother.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN M. DAVENPORT,
Priest of the Mission Church,
Portland, St. John, N. B.

November 28, 1887.


LETTER FROM MR. QUIGLEY.

To the Editor of the Globe:

SIR, - Two communications have appeared in your columns anent mine of Monday last, from writers with whom I had no quarrel. One purports to be an answer and a defense (?) of Bishop Kingdon. Surely the Bishop must feel - Non tali auxilio! Save me from my friends: I will look after my enemies myself!

"It may be fairly assumed" says the second writer, "that His Lordship will make .... a fitting reply." I think so too. The Bishop, deservedly no doubt, gets credit for "pluck " in more departments than one. He is also a man of honor, and recalling his own thought - "humanum est errare - to err is human" - often expressed during his lecture, will not, I think, hesitate to acknowledge his kinship with our common humanity, by making an amende honorable for his error touching the old church to which he owes at least fair play.

Respectfully yours,

R. F. QUIGLEY.

Ritchie's Building,
Friday Morning, Dec. 2d, '87.


LETTER FROM MR. DAVENPORT.

MR. QUIGLEY'S CRITICISMS ON BISHOP KINGDON’S LECTURE.

To the Editor of the Globe:

SIR,- It is as I suspected when I criticised hypothetically what was attributed to Bishop Kingdon by Mr. Quigley. The Bishop has been misrepresented.

Bishop Kingdon has not seen Mr. Quigley's letter, but he has kindly taken the trouble to give me the substance of his own remarks and also some quotations from his lecture. With regard to the Hebrew and Greek texts of Gen. iii. 15, he went over much the same ground as myself in my strictures on Mr. Quigley. He proved also from several of the chief Fathers of the Church that it was far from their mind to attribute the bruising of the Serpent's head to the Virgin; and simply said that the mistake ipsa for ipse had acquired a tremendous importance from being quoted in the promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX. He neither said nor implied that "the dogma was founded on a misprint." I hope, therefore, now Mr. Quigley has been proved in error on every point, he will see his way to act upon his own recommendation which appeared in your to-day's issue. Mr. Quigley seems somewhat indignant that any one should notice his letters besides the person attacked. Why then did he appear in public? and why reproach people in general who refuse to worship the Virgin Mary?

In conclusion, allow me to draw the attention of your readers to a quotation made by Mr. Quigley from S. Epiphanius (I have not verified it, but it will suit my purpose as it stands), which he thinks very telling against persons outside his church, but which, "by a strange Nemesis," points its darts against himself and co-religionists. "It is no less criminal," says the saint, "to vilify the Holy Virgin than to glorify her above measure." Now, I suppose that not even the most rabid protestant will dissent from the assertion that it is a crime to vilify the Blessed Virgin or indeed any other saint living or departed - it remains, however, for Mr. Quigley and his friends to tell us how much further we should go than Liguori and the Raccolta I quoted in glorifying the Holy Virgin before we become criminous. I have no doubt myself what the answer of S. Epiphanius himself would be.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN M. DAVENPORT,

Priest of the Mission Church.
December 2d, 1887.


LETTER FROM MR. QUIGLEY.

IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM.

To the Editor of the Globe:

SIR, - I am not, the public cannot be, satisfied with the latest shuffle in this matter of the writer in Saturday's paper. It is quite "too thin," - too diaphanous indeed and your interested readers will easily "catch on." To exhaust every obligation of courtesy to the Bishop I have had all the papers sent to him to-day. The talk about misrepresentation is simply absurd. Mr. Ellis, of the GLOBE, was present at the lecture, and the GLOBE'S report (Nov. 23) sustains me. The Bishop said substantially what I have charged against him and on the spot immediately after the lecture I protested to Mr. G. Herbert Lee, Secretary to Lecture Committee, against the incorrectness and unfairness of the Bishop's statement. But Saturday's letter makes it even worse for the Bishop, and I cannot believe he will so stultify himself as to adopt it as a part of his defence. However, I propose patiently to await his action after he will have seen the GLOBE'S report, my first letter and the subsequent correspondence. In this country, happily, no man in church or state is beyond the reach of fair criticism of his public utterances. If the Bishop is content with the defence made for him, I will not complain.

The Bishop's defender says I am indignant that any one besides the Bishop should notice my letter. Surely I have not manifested thus far any indignation. I regret if my inattention has unduly wounded his vanity. I did not mean it. I only desire to give the Bishop an opportunity to vindicate himself or to refuse to do so. In either case, I perhaps ought to assure his defender, I will not forget him. Meanwhile let him castigate somewhat his vanity and cultivate the spiritual temper by reading "Liguori and the Raccolta."

Respectfully yours,

R. F. QUIGLEY.

Ritchie's Building, Monday, A. M.

Letters from Mr. Quigley

An excerpt from a book I've mentioned before, called Mary the Mother of Christ in Prophecy and its Fulfillment, by Richard F. Quigley, Ph.D. This first entry in the book should be all the explanation needed for what the book is about.

********************************

PRELIMINARY LETTERS.

EXTRACT from a Report in the St. John Globe, November 23, 1887, of a Lecture on "MISPRINTS," delivered by the Right Reverend Doctor Kingdon, Coadjutor Bishop of Fredericton, New Brunswick:

---

"CHURCH OF ENGLAND INSTITUTE.

"Rev. Canon Brigstocke occupied the chair in Trinity Church School-House last evening, and in a few graceful words introduced the Right Rev. Dr. Kingdon as the lecturer of the evening. The subject was ‘Misprints,’ but the lecture covered more than the title indicates, for it abounded in illustrations of errors of all kinds having their origin in copying, in printing, in pronunciation, and in transposition, and in changes of form and in changes of sound.

"SOMETIMES THE SUBSTITUTION OF ONE LETTER FOR ANOTHER MADE A VAST DIFFERENCE, AND AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THIS HE RE- FERRED TO THE WORDS IPSE AND IPSA, THE LATTER WORD IN AN IMPORTANT PASSAGE IN THE DOUAY (SIC) BIBLE BEING THE FOUNDA- TION OF THE DOGMA OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. . . . ." [1]

---

LETTER FROM MR. QUIGLEY.

IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM.

To the Editor of The Globe:

SIR, - I very much enjoyed the Right Rev. Dr. Kingdoms lecture on "Misprints," a short report of - which you gave last evening. His Lordship made a strong appeal for accuracy and correctness, and yet, by a strange Nemesis, grievously erred in his illustration of their importance, based upon the words ipse and ipsa, and his statement in connection therewith. Here, by a misprint of the letter "a" for the letter "e," said his Lordship, there lamentably resulted that thirty-three years ago the Roman Catholic Church was led to promulgate the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The inference, I assume, he intended his hearers to draw was that the alleged foundation for the doctrine being, in these days at all events, a clear and confessed mistake, the church had fallen into grave doctrinal error in declaring it to be a truth of the Christian religion. I aim to report the Bishop correctly, though only substantially, and in the criticism I propose to make I desire to avoid the very semblance of the odium theologicum and to treat him with the utmost respect and courtesy.

Now, I begin by saying that the Bishop's statement is not only wholly incorrect and baseless, but to me his misapprehension is simply appalling, The case for a misprint even, and quite regardless of the consequence deplored by him as resulting from it, is far otherwise than that stated by his Lordship. The discussion raised by him is not between ipse and ipsa alone, but between them and the word ipsum. "Why did he not so put it, since this is the real state of the question? To make the points at issue perfectly intelligible I will here set down the matter of the dispute, viz.: Genesis iii. 15 - according to the different versions. Protestant version: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and 'between thy seed and her seed; IT shall bruise, thy head, etc.; Douay version: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed 'and her seed; SHE shall crush thy head, etc.; The Vulgate: Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius ; IPSA conteret caput tuum, etc. This whole text has been called by the early writers in the church the Proto-Gospel, for it contains a promise of the future Savior. It is, therefore, to Protestant and Catholic alike of transcendent importance and very comprehensive application; but it will be observed that the present contention is over the first word of the second clause only: "IT shall bruise thy head" etc.; "SHE shall crush thy head," etc. The Hebrew text from which both translations ultimately come is according to the learned Cardinal Bellarmine ambiguous, and in consequence three different readings prevailed among ecclesiastical writers as follows; IPSE conteret caput tuum - HE (Christ) shall bruise thy head; IPSA conteret caput tuum - SHE (the woman, the Blessed Virgin, through Christ her Seed) shall crush thy head; IPSUM conteret caput tuum - IT (her seed that is Christ), shall bruise thy head. Why, then, confine the question of misprint to ipse and ipsa and ignore ipsum, the Protestant reading, which itself rejects ipse? The simple truth is that his Lordship's theory of a misprint and his statement thereanent is sheer nonsense. There is absolutely no difference in sense, to the Catholic mind at least, between these three readings. The learned commentator Cornelius a Lapide, Says "all are true" - omnes sunt verae. The Almighty promises that the triumph over Satan is to be complete and his power broken by Christ, who is the seed of the woman. The Protestant version adopts "IPSUM" - "IT," because it thinks it more literally in accord with the true Hebrew reading and that of some of the ancient fathers. The Douay version "IPSA" - "SHE" follows the Vulgate, which is sanctioned by almost all the Latin Fathers, including such names as St. Augustine, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, St. Bernard, Victor and Avitus, as well as by (the Latin translator of) St. Chrysostom, Bede, Alcuin, and many others. And thus it becomes a mere quillet of verbal criticism! So much for the academic aspect of the question.

And now what becomes of the Bishop's assertion that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is founded on a misprint ? It vanishes into thin air. Of course I am not now discussing the truth of this doctrine, but simply correcting an amazing misconception. Unfortunately such misconceptions are too common among our Protestant brethren where the honor of the Blessed Virgin, the mother of Christ - the "Woman! above all women glorified, our tainted nature's solitary boast," as the Protestant Wordsworth addresses her - is concerned. And while Protestant churches will resound with the praises of Sarah and Rebecca and Rachel, of Miriam and Ruth, of Esther and Judith of the Old Testament, and of Elizabeth and Anna, of Magdalen and Martha of the New, the name of Mary, the mother of Christ, is uttered with bated breath lest the sound of her name should make the preacher liable to the charge of superstition. I do not think of imputing such views to his lordship, but the animus of Kemnitzius and others in discussing this translation in another connection is born of such ignorant prejudice, and I do imagine their interpretations led to his mistake. Catholics do not forget the Blessed Virgin's own prediction of that honor which the church in all ages should pay to her - "all generations shall call me blessed," - Luke i. 48; and we believe with St. Epiphanius that "it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin than to glorify her above measure." But enough. I have tried to make the matter clear. There is nothing at all in the Bishop's point. I, as a Catholic, have no more interest in retaining "IPSA," "SHE," in the text than he has, so far as the Immaculate Conception is concerned. Words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Popes Sixtus V and Clement VIII.: so, if, by the discovery of new MSS. or otherwise, it be found that "IT" or "HE," and not "SHE" is the true reading the correction will no doubt be made. But the sublime doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and its definition will not be affected by the change, because it is not dependent upon nor founded on it. It will stand forever all the same, and, perhaps, his lordship and others who now grudgingly "give honor where honor is due" will then have learned to say: Dignare me laudare te, Virgo Sacrata: Da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.

Respectfully yours,

R. F. QUIGLEY

[1] GENESIS iii. 15 - "I will put enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and her seed; HE, SHE, or IT - IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM - shall crush thy head," etc. Bishop Kingdon asserted (1) that the letter "a" in "Ipsa - She" was a "Misprint" for the letter "e" in "Ipse - He," and (2) that the Catholic Church, in promulgating the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, founded it upon this "Misprint"! Such is the Anglo-episcopal idea of Catholic Theology!

Thanksgiving Proclamation

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness": Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we many then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have enabled do establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for the great and various favors which He has been please to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, AD 1789

George Washington

*************************************

Please note: the purpose of the Thanksgiving Holiday was and is so that we, as citizens of the United States, could have "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer."

It's amazing how the entire reason for a given holiday (which name is taken from the Catholic practice of assigning specific "holy-days") can so quickly become an incidental. Christmas, of course, has become the same way.

"Thanksgiving," in the Greek, is eucharist. So it seems to me that the only appropriate way to celebrate Thanksgiving is to attend Holy Mass - I hope most of you got a chance to do so.

Time to gear up for Christmas now ... which means four weeks of Advent, which means four weeks of solid soul-preparation for the great Feast of the Nativity. What self-mortifications will you be undertaking this Advent?

First Sunday of Advent

With the First Sunday of Advent we begin our four-week pilgrimage, mystically speaking, to Bethlehem to meet our Incarnate Lord come to earth. Of necessity, then, this must be a time of preparation for our souls - who in his right mind would fail to prepare himself to meet so great a king?

The coming of Christ is known in Scripture under a different title: "The Day of the Lord." The very words evoke a theme of judgment, of testing - when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth? This is the question Our Lord asks of us.

Although the "Day of the Lord" refers primarily to Our Lord's Second Coming - when He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead - it can be said that any "coming" of the Lord is a day of judgment. Thus, even the Incarnation, the first coming of Our Lord to earth, is a time of judgment - or rather, of separation. His presence of necessity causes division, because His presence demands a response from Men: we are either like the shepherds and wise men who acknowledge Him as king as worship Him as such, or we are like Herod, who tried everything in his power to destroy this King of the Jews.

So it is that, as we prepare for Christmas, the Church places before us on this First Sunday of Advent these words from the Gospel: "There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves: men withering away for fear and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world. For the powers of heaven shall be moved. And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with great power and majesty."

These words are perhaps more appropriate now, in our time, than ever before, by reason of the fact that we are most certainly living in the "end of times." For most, this Second Coming (which is prefigured and anticipated by the First Coming) will be a time of great distress and confusion, of "men withering away for fear and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world."

However, the text goes on to tell us what ought to be our disposition: "But when these things begin to come to pass, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand." This is the judgment that the coming of the Lord causes: you will either be in fear at His coming, or you will lift up your head in joy to see your redemption drawing near.

In order that you may be in the latter category and not the former, St. Paul instructs us in this Sunday's epistle, "now is the hour for us to rise from sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed." See the similarity in the Gospel and the epistle: in the former, we are told that our redemption draws near, and in the latter, that "our salvation is nearer than when we believed."

What must we do to prepare for this Day of the Lord (that is, His coming, whether at Christmas, the Last Judgment, or even to the altar in the Most Holy Eucharist)? The Apostle continues, "the night is passed, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy: but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ." To put on the Lord Jesus, which is to say, to "put on the armour of light," is to put on justice and righteousness - that is, the state of grace.

The Apostle tells us to "cast off the works of darkness," a most appropriate instruction for this season. Nature itself is giving us clues in this regard (did not Our Lord say in this Sunday's Gospel that there would be "signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars?") - we are approaching the Winter Solstice, the one day in our 365-day calendar when the sun shines for the least amount of time, when the majority of the 24-hour day will be covered with darkness. But the Solstice (December 21) is succeeded quickly by the Feast of Our Lord's Nativity (December 25), and from this day forward the days begin to get longer, the darkness is increasingly dispelled, and the light of the sun grows stronger after the Incarnation of "the Sun of Justice."

As we enter the darkest days of the calendar year (and indeed, the darkest days of our ecclesial history), we are reminded of the spiritual choice which is ours: to be swallowed up by the darkness, or to increasingly resist the darkness by casting it off, along with all of its works.

This casting off of the darkness consists in the very works which we ought to be doing during Advent: mortifying the flesh, fasting, praying, meditating, performing the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and in all other ways lifting up our souls to God (as we pray in the Introit).

However, as anyone knows who has attempted to make this preparation, there is great struggle involved. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, is it not? But what choice do we have? To fail to cast off the works of darkness is to be conquered by the darkness, is to find ourselves on the side of Herod instead of with the Magi.

Recognizing the seriousness of the situation - the necessity of working towards our salvation, and simultaneously the (human) impossibility of doing so - the Church gives us these words from the Introit: "To Thee have I lifted up my soul: in Thee, O my God, I put my trust, let me not be ashamed: neither let my enemies laugh at me: for none of them that wait on Thee shall be confounded."

This is our confession and our petition: we confess that we are not able, in our own strength, to prepare ourselves worthily for Our Lord's coming or to stand before Him at the judgment; thus, we cast ourselves upon His mercy and say, "let me not be ashamed." Or, as we pray in the great hymn Te Deum, " In Te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum" (in Thee Lord I have trusted, let me never be confounded).

With these words we have a sort of key-note for the four Sundays of Advent: O Lord, let me not be ashamed before Thee when Thou comest to earth. We hear in such words an echo of the original state of grace and innocence that was the possession of our First Parents: "they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." It is this original state of holiness which was lost by Adam, and which became the occasion of Our Lord's coming at the Incarnation.

In Adam we were, at one time, not ashamed; through his sin we have become ashamed; but the Incarnation of Our Redeemer offers us the grace to once again "be not ashamed," and it is this that we ask of Almighty God in the Introit. So important is this prayer, along with its note of confidence that "none of them that wait on Thee shall be confounded," that it is repeated in the Gradual and in the Offertory.

Although not used in this Sunday's Mass, we cannot help but hear the response of God to our prayer, through the mouth of Isaiah the prophet: "They are all confounded and ashamed: the forgers of errors are gone together into confusion. Israel is saved in the Lord with an eternal salvation: you shall not be confounded, and you shall not be ashamed for ever and ever." (Is. 45:16-17)

There is the promise - both a promise of judgment and simultaneously a promise of salvation: the forgers of error will indeed be in confusion (recall the words of the Gospel, that there will be distress among the nations "by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea"), and will be confounded and ashamed; but Israel (that is, the Church - "whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them and mercy: and upon the Israel of God" [Gal. 6:16]) belongs to Our Lord, and She "shall not be confounded ... shall not be ashamed for ever and ever."

Thus we pray in the Collect, "Stir up, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy power, and come: that from the threatening dangers of our sins we may attain by Thy protection to be delivered, and by Thy deliverance to be saved."

In Te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum.

Another Week Gone

Been kinda quiet over here, hasn't it?

I've been keeping myself very much occupied lately, and just haven't had anything new to post in the meantime.

I'm currently working on writing a series of new essays on contraception, and collecting all of my old essays on the same subject - and the whole lot of them will be compiled into one large manuscript, which I'm seriously contemplating giving away as Christmas gifts (no joke).

I may post one or two of those essays here for your perusal, but be forewarned: they tend to get long-winded.

Other than that, I've been having a blast with my 2-year-old daughter (Lucy, by name), exploring the kitchen with her for the first time. We made pumpkin pie last week, pancakes last Saturday, waffles on Wednesday morning (when I was home from work with a back-ache), and one seriously foreboding batch of home-made egg nog on Wednesday night.

She loves the kitchen. She loves to pour ingredients into the bowl, and to "stir 'da shi-ger" is one of her favorite activities now. I like to watch her get interested in the process of making food, and I also sleep better at night knowing that I'm instilling in my daughter those very stereo-typical and politically-incorrect feminine attachments to the kitchen, the oven, the recipe book, etc.

Poor thing doesn't even know she's being repressed. Worse yet, she's actually having fun in the process.

Anyway, that's what I've been up to. That, and the usual Life-Stuff that eats up your time and energy.

Make sure you visit the web site and read this article on the Mass, Creation, and our Everyday Life.

My Rights Can Beat Up Your Rights

A public school in Toronto, Ontario is trampling all over the religious rights of parents, and getting away with it. The school is doing that new "anti-homophobia training" thing where they show videos to the kids and have discussions - and understandably, some parents don't want their kids involved in that crap.

Too bad for the parents. The school is making no exceptions. The whole story can be found here. This was the most chilling paragraph:

While the board has a policy to consider accommodation based on religious rights, "religious beliefs do not trump human rights," said Patricia Hayes, a rights expert with the school board.

So there you have it. Religious beliefs don't trump human rights.

Forget the fact that "human rights" are determined precisely by religious beliefs, which would seem to make "human rights" subordinate to and dependent upon religious beliefs.

Forget the fact that the practice of Sodomy is itself a "religious belief," even if that "religion" is - properly speaking - Atheism.

Forget the fact that, included in "human rights" is the "right" to practice one's own religion, and not be forced to practice someone else's religion. It would seem that, in enforcing the "human rights" of the Sodomites, the school is willing to trample the "human rights" of conservative parents to practice their own religion unhindered, not to mention the "human rights" of all parents to regulate the education of their children.

No, these are little inconsistencies that we would rather not deal with. You know why? Because "religious beliefs do not trump human rights" is pithy, short, easy to memorize, and fits nicely on a bumper sticker. And unfortunately, Modern Man is not much more intellectual than that.

C'est la vie.

Teen Fornication: You Connect the Dots

See if you can piece the puzzle together ...

*******************************

"A new program at Del Rio Middle School is doing its part to help curb teen pregnancy and reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among local teenagers." (Del Rio News-Herald, 4/04)

"Programs to prevent teen pregnancies and the spread of HIV could be expanded in county schools. Four county "hot spots" for teen pregnancy were cited: Pahokee, Belle Glade, Lake Worth and West Palm Beach." (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 4/04)

"Since 1994, San Antonio's teenage pregnancy rate has been one of the highest in the nation." (News 9 San Antonio, 3/04)

"Teen pregnancy is an issue connected with the state’s high infant mortality rate, Heck said. In the Athens district, the teen birth rate for 10 to 19 years was 25.2 per 1,000, slightly lower than the statewide rate of 27.4 per 1,000." (Gwinnett Daily Post, 3/04)

"Teenage pregnancy rates in the Rio Grande Valley in recent years have surpassed those of the state and the nation overall. A survey last year by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found that 97 of every thousand U.S. girls ages 15 to 19 was pregnant." (News 24 Houston, 12/03)

**************************

One of the top "hot toys" this year for Christmas will be the Bratz dolls and the rest of the Bratz product line: board games, activity books, sleeping bags, clocks, lamps, phones, cameras, fashion accessories, cosmetics, play houses, play cars, video games - the list goes on and on.

Pamela Anderson thinks they're great.

Personally, Cloe is my favorite.

I have compiled a very short list of Bratz products and their descriptions below. All of the information came from the Amazon.com web site. Please note especially the age groups that are being target by these product-makers.

Bratz Matchmaker Journal (View)

Manufacturer's age: 5 years and up

Amazon Editorial Review: Get organized and get funky! The Bratz Matchmaker Journal not only operates as a standard personal organizer, with tab-divided pages for monthly, weekly, and hourly planning, addresses, notes, expenses, etc.; it also features a removable mini-calculator device with various modes to explore relationships, personalities, and even compatibility with partners! The trendy Bratz girls, including Jade, Cloe, Yasmin, and Sasha, pout flirtatiously out from the pearly mauve-trimmed cover of the journal, inviting girls to divulge their darkest secrets. Analyzing the answers to a series of yes/no or multiple choice questions, the Analyze This! mode then determines the respondent's psychological makeup. The Matchmaker mode will determine from birth dates the compatibility of two people. It's all fun and games, of course, but certainly entertaining for a little while. And useful as a planner and calculator for the long haul!

Bratz Stylin' Dance Party Dance Mat (View)

Manufacturer's age: 6 years and up

Manufacturer Description: Groove on down with the Bratz in this stylin' dance game! Just plug it directly into your television, lay out the dance mat and get ready to express yourself to ten of the hottest hits ruling the charts right now! Learn crazy cool dance moves! With three levels of difficulty, plus bonus games Pinball Party and Knock out games, it's time to strut your stuff!

Bratz Girl Talk - The Stylin' Game of Truth or Dare (View)

Manufacturer's age: 8 years and up

Manufacturer Description: Sure you've played Truth or Dare before, but have you ever played the Bratz way? Now you can express your passion for fashion while you reveal a little of yourself to your friends. Whether its the crazy questions (Name three things you wish you were old enough to do) or the silly stunts (Make up a Bratz rap and sing it to the group!), youll get lots of laughs every time you play. Game comes with game tray with spinner, two double-sided stunt/question wheels, 96 Bratz chat cards and instructions.

Bratz Secret Date Cloe (View)

Manufacturer's age: 6 years and up

Manufacturer Description: It's a night you're sure to never forget as you share a first date with the Bratz and Bratz Boyz as they laugh over a midnight smoothie, slow dance under a full moon, and find themselves getting closer than ever ... as they walk the fine line between friendship and love. In addition to tons of stylin' accessories, this collective Bratz and Bratz Boyz two-pack highlights the real anticipation of a real blind date by offering a unique packaging design that hides your Bratz Boyz blind date from view, to ensure he remains a mystery until you've taken him home and opened the box. Bonus rare Collector's Edition includes a completely new Bratz Boyz character!

Bratz 35mm Glimmerin' Glam Cam with Film (View)

Manufacturer's age: 5 years and up

Manufacturer Description: Now you can be the funkiest fashion model ever with this real-working camera! This awesome camera is sure to catch you looking your best ... in just a snap!

Sleeping in the Bed which You Made

Things are about to get very interesting in Washington, DC.

For all of you who insisted that George W. Bush needed our votes, citing the fact that he would "appoint conservative judges," I have some less-than-surprising news.

Sen. Arlen Specter stands a very good chance of being appointed as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and, as many conservative Republicans are frantically pointing out, this does not bode well for the pro-life movement.

As Chairman, Specter will have the ability to effectively weed out any potentially pro-life nominees before they even have a chance to surface. Would Specter do such a thing?

Apparently so, as StopSpecterNow (stopspecter.savethegop.com) points out: "Specter has made clear that he will block any judge that believes in strict construction , as he showed by stopping the Bork nomination and in recent press statements warning Bush not to nominate 'conservative' judges."

Indeed, check the papers:

Newsday

"Perhaps more importantly, yesterday the likely new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania moderate, sent a strong signal to Bush that he expected to be consulted beforehand on judicial nominations and that very conservative nominees might not be approved."

Associated Press

"'When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely,' Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. 'The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster,' Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. '... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.'"

Let's hope Specter doesn't make it. But if he does, ultimately the blame rests with none other than George W. himself, because, as I have pointed out several times, it was Bush who helped pro-abort Specter defeat pro-life Toomey in the senate race.

I've been watching this same scenario unfold in the Vatican for a few years now, where the pope appoints liberal cardinals and bishops, and then complains that his hands are tied, that his house is divided, that there are so many dissenting liberals in the Church.

It's odd to see Bush potentially making those same mistakes ...

Fools Like You

This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.

...

The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.

The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation? (Gary Wills, "The Day the Enlightenment Went Out," New York Times, November 4, 2004)

I certainly hope not, Mr. Wills. I certainly hope we're on our way back from the nightmare of so-called "enlightenment."

Because the Enlightenment has given us a slew of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals like Mr. Wills: intolerant and nasty people who oppress and mock the "religious conservatives," the poor foolish and unwashed masses who still believe in childish superstitions like the Virgin Birth.

The Enlightened (or, if you prefer the Latin, Illuminati) are hell-bent on forever silencing nuisances like me. They would love to see me and people who think like me (maybe you?) marginalized and laughed off the stage of history. They will violently protest when the "fanatics" of the Right want to do things like pray in public, put up manger scenes at Christmas, or preserve historical monuments that have references to God engraved on them.

All of this they will do, while publicly and loudly proclaiming themselves to be tolerant and accepting of all people and beliefs.

It is this hypocrisy that is most maddening.

At least I'm honest. At least I'm consistent. I come from a religious heritage that waged militant warfare against infidels and heretics when those same infidels and heretics tried to oppress the "religious conservatives." I come from a religious heritage that has absolutely no problem proclaiming, even as many as three times in solemn dogmatic formulae, that we and we alone have the Truth, and that outside this Church there is no salvation.

That's intolerance, for sure, but we make no apologies for it. We don't hide it. We stand by it.

But the Enlightened don't have the guts to speak the truth about their own position. They're just as intolerant as I am - they will insist on promoting their liberal agenda in public places, while simultaneously denying my opinions any kind of voice in the public square - ironically enough, because my opinions are deemed by them "intolerant."

They love and embrace all religious beliefs - except mine. They respect all philosophical opinions and religious practices - except mine.

Believe just about anything you want, and they'll hail you as one of the Enlightened; but believe in the Virgin Birth, and they'll sneer at you and mock you in print.

It's days like these that I yearn for the Crusades and the Inquisition ...

************************

By the way, I've begun to adopt the language of the Enlightened when I have to deal with them in the public arena, and I highly recommend that you do the same. That is, if I hear someone take God's name in vain, or openly discussing the merits of fornication, I no longer whine to them about being "offended." No, I step up and demand that they stop "oppressing my religious freedom." If they jeer at me for having out-moded ideas, I inform them that I won't tolerate them committing "hate crimes" against me.

Two can play at this game.

Ode to Revolution?

Ridding the house of Rock and Roll music is a worthy endeavor, I can assure you. But apparently, you even have to be careful and discerning with some classical music as well. How many of you knew that the Beethoven classic, the Ninth Symphony, was written as an anthem to Freemasonry?

From an online encyclopedia:

The Ode to Joy was adopted as Europe's anthem by the Council of Europe in 1972, with an official arrangement for orchestra written by Herbert von Karajan.

In 2003, the European Union chose Beethoven's music for the poem as the EU anthem, without German lyrics, because of the many different languages used within the European Union. Therefore, the EU anthem is in effect the Beethoven theme (or melody) rather than Schiller's poem, although its connection with the ideal of human brotherhood in the text is understood. This ideal is stated in much more universal terms in Beethoven's adaptation ("All human beings become brothers") than in Schiller's original, which states that "beggars become the brothers of princes."

Interesting, isn't it?

The lyrics are quite interesting:

Joy, thou shining spark of God,
Daughter of Elysium,
With fiery rapture, goddess,
We approach thy shrine.

Your magic reunites
That which stern custom has parted;
All humans will become brothers
Under your protective wing.

Even the Rosicrucian movement gets a tip-of-the-hat:

Joy is drunk by every creature
From Nature's breast;
Every good one, every bad one
Follows her rosy pathway

Revolution in music. Amazing what you can learn in a day.

The Origins of the Reformation?

The Daily Telegraph has reported some absolutely fascinating news. I can add nothing more - if ever a news story spoke for itself, this is it.

*****************************

The seat of the Reformation
By Kate Connolly in Wittenburg

German archaeologists have discovered the lavatory on which Martin Luther wrote the 95 Theses that launched the Protestant Reformation.

Luther frequently alluded to the fact that he suffered from chronic constipation and that he spent much of his time in contemplation on the lavatory.

Experts say they have been certain for years that the 16th century religious leader wrote the groundbreaking Ninety-Five Theses while on das klo, as the Germans call it.

But they did not know where the object was until they discovered the stone construction after recently stumbling across the remains of an annex of his house in Wittenberg, south-west of Berlin, during planning to plant a garden.

"This is a great find," Stefan Rhein, the director of the Luther Memorial Foundation said, "particularly because we're talking about someone whose texts we have concentrated on for years, while little attention has been paid to anything three-dimensional and human behind them. This is where the birth of the Reformation took place. Luther said himself that he made his reformatory discovery in cloaca [Latin for "in the sewer"]. We just had no idea where this sewer was. Now it's clear what the Reformer meant."

What makes the find even more fitting is that at the time, faecal language was often used to denigrate the devil, such as "I [profanity deleted] on the devil" or "I break wind on the devil".

Prof Rhein said: "It was not a very polite time. And in keeping with this, neither was Luther very polite."

The 450-year-old lavatory, which was very advanced for its time, is made out of stone blocks and, unusually, has a 30cm-square seat with a hole. Underneath is a cesspit attached to a primitive drain.

Other interesting parts of the house remain, including a vaulted ceiling, late Gothic sandstone door frames and what is left of a floor-heating system.

This presumably gave Luther an added source of comfort during the long hours he spent in contemplation.

Luther, who was professor of biblical theology at Wittenberg University, nailed his theses to the church door at Wittenberg, attacking the corrupt trade in indulgences.

The act led to his excommunication but he was protected by Frederick II of Saxony and was able to develop and spread his ideas, which he saw as much more than a mere revolt against ecclesiastical abuses but as a fight for the Gospel.

Prof Rhein said the foundation would prevent the 80,000 visitors who arrive in Wittenberg each year in search of the spirit of Luther, from sitting on the lavatory. "I would not sit on it. There's a point where you have to draw the line," he said.

Unplug Me

So ... I've been reading some literature on the subject of Distributism, and I really think I'm resonating with a lot of it. I'm starting to ask some very serious and potentially life-changing questions.

What is Distributism?

I'll try to explain it in a way that actually makes some practical sense - most of the explanations I've read have been dry, economic theory.

Distributism is a system in which as many people as possible are owners, not just laborers; wealth and private property are distributed widely, not merely owned by a lucky few.

I'm just starting to grasp some of these concepts, but the one that startled me the most was this: true "wealth" consists in having three things:

1) Raw resource (grapes, for example)
2) A means of production (winepresses, for example)
3) Labor

Everyone has #3, except for maybe the handicapped. But in our society, who has #1 and #2? I certainly don't. Most of you don't, either. The ones who do have these things usually go by the title "CEO," "President," "Owner," etc., and they have visibly more wealth than you.

Don't ask me what most CEOs claim as raw resource and means of production, though. I'm just beginning to realize that most companies today are not producing actual, tangible goods (most people just stare and scratch their heads when I tell them I work as an "applications developer for a third-party logistics company" - but this is just a symptom of the modern disease).

I think the idea here is to get families back to owning land, working the land, and producing actual, tangible wealth.

Almost no one owns land today. I know I don't. Oh, sure, I have a modest house with a nice backyard for the kids to play in - but I don't own those things. You see, I pay property tax. Yes, that's right, the government penalizes me and makes me pay them an annual fee for occupying the particular plot of land on which my house sits. We have a word for that today: leasing. Renting.

I have a feeling that if I didn't pay my property tax, I'd find out pretty soon just how much of an "owner" I really am.

Beyond that, since I have no raw resources, nor the means of production to turn those resources into something marketable, I have nothing to sell to society except my labor. So I search until I find a true owner who does have resources and means of production, and I ask him if I can sell him my labor.

We have a word for that, too: slavery. At least, in the classic sense of the word. We tend to think of slavery in terms of our most recent historical context: the black slaves on the plantations. They didn't get their own houses and land to live on, like most of us do. And I'm not in any real danger of being tied to a pole and whipped by my boss, or of having the owner of my company drop in on me to rape my wife, as sometimes happened in the days of yore.

On the other hand ... it's not like most wage-slave workers aren't abused. I have friends who work at companies where they have mandated 50-hour work weeks, but since they're salaried employees, they get paid for 40-hour work weeks. Don't want to work 10 extra hours a week for free? You may get fired. And don't think that there isn't another guy right behind you who would gladly take your place, even though it means 50-hour work weeks (I lost a job once because my co-worker was willing to work overtime hours and not charge the company for it; I couldn't keep up with him, and eventually I became no longer necessary).

I have made a pact with the current economic system. I will be given the paper money (with no real gold or silver to back it up, by the way) necessary to sustain myself and a small family, modest health and dental care, the occasional vacation and personal day, and a few paid holidays.

In exchange, I promise to sell my labor for 40 hours a week, helping someone else produce a product, over which I have absolutely no ownership (in fact, whenever I begin a new job, I have to sign a piece of paper that says my employer legally owns all ideas that come out of my brain while I'm working for him; if I invent some totally revolutionary technology while working for him, he owns the rights to it, and I can't sell it to anyone - in fact, I can't even copy the code onto a floppy disk and take it home without being charged with stealing company property).

In addition to selling my labor, I will also pay the government a penalty fee called "income tax," because apparently working is an offense for which I can be legally fined.

I promise to do this until I am 65 years old, at which point I will be finally released (sort of) from this slavery, and given a modest retirement pension (if I plan right).

Some of my retirement money will come from the younger working class who will, as I do now, pay a "social security tax," because - as was said - after working for 35-40 years of my life, I will have no tangible ownership of a real product that I can claim as my own.

I will have nothing to show for my work except the paper money (which really is just paper) that I started collecting at the beginning of my career, and even then, I won't have much of it, so the next generation will have to help support me. They will pay a penalty fee for the fact that I worked for 40 years; yes, I know, I already paid my fines and fees via "income tax" for working those 40 years, but so will my children. Apparently the fact that I go to work every day is so heinous an offense that it will merit a monetary penalty even after I quit working, to be exacted from someone other than myself.

In 40 years, the government will still expect me to pay a leasing fee for the property that is supposedly mine.

If I am like most working American men, I will work hard during those 40 years, above and beyond the 40-hour work week, to ensure that I do have a sizeable "nest egg" when I retire. I will send my wife off to work as well, because while I'm busy socking away money into a mutual fund (and making the owner of Mutual-Inc rich in the process), the kids need to eat, wear clothes, get braces, get an education, and go to college someday.

So, with both myself and my wife sold into wage-slavery, we will have to send our offspring to a daycare (which will cost more money) and to public school, where they will be taught to hate our conservative values and to disrespect our authority. They will be taught how to have sex "safely" from the time they are in 3rd grade, and if one of them ends up pregnant and wants an abortion, they will be counseled how to do this without having to tell either me or my wife about it - because, as they are being taught, their parents are stupid dolts who don't anything about "real life," and need not be respected or obeyed (or even included in "the loop").

My wife and I will come home every day from work absolutely exhausted, with nothing to show for our work. We will be too tired to prepare a meal, so we will order out for pizza, or Chinese, or perhaps we will all go out to our favorite restaurant, where we will be served such ridiculous portions that we will all be forced to either commit the sin of gluttony or the sin of waste.

In either case, we will continue to pump our bodies full of processed foods (whether purchased at a restaurant, or in boxes and cans from the store) that are making us sick and overweight. We and our children will continue to get fatter (as will everyone around us) because the calories we take into our bodies every day would require an entire day of hard labor to burn them off, but in fact we tend to spend the entire day in the sitting position: sitting at desks at work, sitting in front of the TV at home, sitting on couches reading, sitting in the car on trips, sitting at the theatre, sitting at the sports arena, sitting, sitting, sitting.

When my wife and I finally decide to do something about the weight problem, we will - if we are typical Americans - pay even more money and sacrifice even more free time to join some sort of gym, wherein we will spend 5-10 more hours per week in a room full of half-dressed men and women, working on machines specifically built for the purpose of making us exercise our muscles.

The kids will stay home during this time and entertain themselves by watching TV shows, which will further confirm in their minds the ideas they learned at school: Sodomy is normal, fornication is as routine as brushing your teeth, parents are stupid, men are pigs, the Catholic religion is something to be laughed at and mocked, the "enlightened" are the ones who are tolerant of all faiths, etc.

When the weekend comes, the few days during which I am supposedly able to have leisure time, relax, and recover from the week's hard work (which, again I point out, yields no tangible product or benefit for me), I will run around like crazy from place to place, trying to accomplish all the little necessary things that need to get done, but which I have no time to get done during the work week because I'm too busy working as a wage-slave.

My leisure time and my wife's leisure time will be spent grocery shopping, mowing the lawn, painting the house, cleaning rooms, taking out trash, planting flowers, washing the car, paying bills, and maybe even doing a few things I want to do, like going to movies, visiting friends, reading a book, etc. In other words, all activities which (with few exceptions) will wear me out even further.

When the family has free time, we will inevitably spend it apart, because the 5-day work week has taught us how to be strangers to each other, so that when we are finally all put together in the same room, we don't know what to do. We are bored, because we are boring, and we are boring because technology has stolen our imagination. If we do choose to do something together, it will inevitably be something which distracts both of us from having to interact, such as watching a movie, going to a concert, attending a baseball game, etc.

All of this will one day end in that long sought-after retirement, when both my wife and I will be free from wage-slavery (assuming we're still together). Of course, by that time, we will have spent 40 years growing apart, and the kids will have grown up and left the house.

Faced with an empty home, no one to talk to but each other, and no 40-hour work week to keep us busy, we will go crazy. We will both seek to fill the days with things to do apart from each other: join a golf league, find a book club, take up stamp-collecting, take up yard work, etc. - anything that gives us an excuse to avoid interacting. We will probably be so desperate for a change of scenery that we will sell everything and move to Florida, where we will live out our days trying to entertain ourselves with exotic distractions, and hardly ever seeing our children and grandchildren.

This is the American Nightmare, which most of us are grateful to be participating in - we have so much more than our ancestors who lived in the Dark Ages, and we are infinitely better off than most third-world countries. Or so we say.

*************************

The Distributists have a slightly different vision, and I have to say, it seems mighty tempting - even with its potential difficulties.

The "American Dream," according to this new vision (actually, a very old vision, and not just a vision, but an actual practice), might look something like this:

My wife and I own a chunk of land and a modest home. We actually own this land and house, and do not pay anyone a leasing fee for trying to own something. We work the land together (I, of course, in the spirit of true sexism, insisting on doing the more physically difficult tasks myself), and our children help us.

We grow most of the food that we eat, minus the preservatives and chemicals. Perhaps we own a cow or two, and maybe a pig. Obviously, we wouldn't be eating a lot of meat, but neither would we be eating heaping plates of fresh-from-the-box pasta alfredo, Super-Size bags of McDonald's, Baskin Robbins ice cream, stuffed-crust Pizza Hut, etc.

A mostly vegetarian diet, combined with a days' worth of manual labor, and we might just begin to see healthier hearts, stronger muscles, and slimmer waists - without having to pay money to jump on artificial machines and spend hours letting our eyes take in visions of immodest dress.

I would have to be a jack of all trades, knowing how to grow food, harvest crops, raise animals, slaughter animals, make cheese, can veggies, tan hides, stock up for winter, butcher a pig (do you currently have any idea which part of the pig bacon comes from?), make butter, store ice for the summer, etc.

That is to say, I would have to actually have useful skills that would be directly applicable to my survival and welfare. I would have to have real-world knowledge about living and material things. Imagine that.

My children would be around their parents pretty much all the time, helping with the chores, not just because they were told to help, but because they have a vested interest in making sure things get done. If Johnny doesn't milk the cow tonight like I asked him to, nobody in the family gets to drink milk tomorrow morning - including Johnny.

When the days' work is finished, there would be visible results and benefits: food on the table, security for the future, improvements to the house and/or land, etc. Without the Internet or TV to suck our brains dry of any imagination, we would have to spend our leisure time together as a family, having real (not artificial) fun: making up and telling stories together, playing musical instruments and singing, dancing, playing outside, etc.

The children would be taught by their parents - and not just abstract book-knowledge. In addition to learning the Holy Faith from the two people best-equipped to teach them, the kids would also learn the basics of education (reading, writing, etc.) - and a trade, or trades. I would pass on to my sons the family traditions - in Latin, the word is tradere, which means to "hand on," and, at first glance, appears to be the very word from which we get our term "trade." In teaching my sons a trade, I will be handing on the tradition to them - as a good father ought to do.

The girls would learn from their mother how to do essential things like make clothes for themselves, their brothers, and their father; they would learn how to prepare the meats, fruits, and vegetables that I and my sons bring into the home as the tangible fruits of our labors. They would learn how to preserve foods so that our family would survive the winter.

I dare say that no one would ever be bored.

Ideally, we would live in a small community of people doing the same things we are. There would be occasional interaction with our neighbors - we would help each other out at harvest time, etc., but the majority of the company we would keep would be with each other and with our extended family. None of the modern plague of the father running off with "the boys" every night, mother out with "the girls," the kids off with their individual friends, and the family house perpetually empty.

As our children grew up and got married, they would own similar plots of land and build similar houses, with the help of their families. When my wife and I got to be good and old, it would be our children (and their children) who would help support us in our old age. They would be able to do this because we wouldn't be living 2,000 miles away in Florida.

As grandparents and great-grandparents, we would be revered and honored by our children, grand-children, etc., because having a great respect for what is old and venerable is something we would instill in our kids from day one.

They would revere the traditions and trades passed on to them because these things are necessary for their survival; this would in turn be a natural parallel to the supernatural reality - that is, they would likewise revere the traditions of the Holy Faith passed on to them, because these are necessary for their eternal survival.

As the owner of my own property and land, I would not waste most of my life working to make someone else prosperous. And my "employees" (i.e., my children) would very much have a vested interest in working for me - a real sense of ownership and responsibility.

How many of us have this today? Our corporations keep trying to create this artificial sense of ownership and responsibility for the employees, but we know better. TechCorp, Inc. breaks into the top 500 businesses, and everyone in the company gets a nice email from management, sincerely thanking them for their hard work in bringing the corporation this far. Everyone is told they ought to feel proud and have a real sense of accomplishment for being a vital part of a successful organization.

Bull.

I'm not a vital part of anything. If they fire me tomorrow, the corporation lives on, on 99% of the corporation doesn't even know I'm gone. Aside from this congratulatory email, I see no tangible benefit from the corporation's success. Neither does my boss, or probably even his boss. The owners and shareholders do, but I certainly do not.

I'm just a wage-slave.

And I'm raising my children to be wage slaves as well.

Welcome to the System, son, here's your Social Security Number. Please fill out this form and step to the left.

*************************

Now, I know what you're going to say. The Distributist vision is no utopia. There would undoubtedly be new challenges and difficulties. The question is, which set of difficulties do I want to deal with?

At the least, I would like to live in an economic system that encourages life. On my own farm with my own land, it is to my material benefit to have as many children as I can. More children means more labor, means more production, means more real wealth for everyone involved.

Currently, my boss could care less if I have another kid. It doesn't increase my output, so he's not going to pay me any more money. Thus, the more children I have, the less wealth I will have. Each new child is another parasite to help drain my resources without contributing anything materially to help me.

No wonder modern man wants to kill his children before they are born. They are a liability, and this economic system has made them such.

There really is no sense of family togetherness in our modern system. When my kids turn 16 and get work permits, are they really going to embrace the idea of turning over their paychecks to be deposited into a family bank account? Whereas, on the farm, the work they do on the land yields tangible results that cannot help but benefit everyone.

In that system, the children learn very early that they are a vital part of a community - one would think they would tend to grow up a little less self-centered and individualistic, no?

And another thing: wouldn't this system tend to align more properly with the order of creation? God said "six days shalt thou labor, and on the seventh shalt thou rest," but here in modern America we work for five days, and rest for two (if you can call that "rest").

For all of the difficulties it may present, it does seem like Distributism would be a lifestyle much more conducive to sanctity and natural values. Can our modern system offer anything like this, wherein we and our children will learn - by force of habit - to respect hard work, cherish a day of rest, value moments of leisure, spend time together as a family, value the unique contribution of each family member, cultivate imagination, revere traditions and the handing on of knowledge, respect elders in the community, etc.?

No, our modern system teaches us, also by force of habit, to sit around on our rears, always look out for Number One, waste our leisure time doing nothing of any lasting value, grow distant from our families, always be seeking after what is new and modern, despise what is old and outdated, view the elderly and the newborn as afflictions, etc.

Now, the question is ... how to go about getting unplugged from this Matrix-like world of artificiality, and get back to the real world, where wealth is tangible, love means labor, and Faith is cultivated in the context of venerable tradition?

Brain-Fry

What have I gotten myself into?

I've been hearing a lot lately about a classic work written by Cardinal Bellarmine, called Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei - Disputations on the Controversies of the Christian Faith.

Supposedly this is the standard Catholic apologia against Protestantism, written by a very learned Jesuit (also a saint and doctor of the Church) who lived during those tumultuous times.

So I've been looking all over for this work (which, according to scattered reports, is either 3 or 4 volumes), and cannot find it in English.

I finally found it, via inter-library loan, in the original Latin.

So guess what that means?

That means I'm going to have to translate it into English, which, given the unsuccessful results of my searching, may very well be the first time this text has been translated into our language.

If anyone knows of an already-existing translation of this work, please let me know and spare me the effort. Translating is not my favorite thing to do, nor is it very easy for me (I have passable Latin, but I'm not a scholar by any stretch).

Otherwise, if you happen to be any good at Latin yourself, do let me know - I'm more than willing to farm out some of this work and share the load.

Mercy ...

The Pure New Testament Church

Fundamentalist Protestants are so amusing. I know, I know, you'll think that's a condescending and rude thing to say, but I just don't know how you can take these people seriously sometimes. I have to laugh, or I will go crazy.

I've just received (from a "fundy" I know) a chart-by-chart comparison that demonstrates how far gone the "Traditional church" actually is, in relation to the ideal "New Testament Church."

The funny thing is, the "Traditional Church" in this case actually encompasses many, many Protestant denominations. So, you see, this fellow wants his readers to understand that everybody else is wrong, and he alone has understood what the New Testament ideals are.

Like I said, you have to laugh.

It never once occurs to these people to read anything outside of the New Testament, does it? Church history after 90 AD must be just one terribly long, slow, and sad history of decline and corruption.

You try to go back with these people. Try to get them to consider the writings of the early Church. What do they say in response? They do not hesitate to affirm that the Church was already headed towards corruption by the second century.

The second century!

This guy was telling me of the early decline of the Church, and as one of the signs of the apostate church, he cited things like "a tendency towards heirarchical leadership."

Umm ... yeah. You can find that as early as St. Ignatius in 110 AD.

So, let's see ... St. John died around 90 AD, and St. Ignatius was writing in 110 AD, so that means that the Church had become apostate within 20 years of the apostolic age.

Who would be so foolish as to affirm this? Do they not realize that they wrongly indict the Apostles themselves by these charges? Poor St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John ... they were such horrible teachers that they couldn't even manage to pass their message through 20 years of history without it going from "purity" to "apostasy." This also means that the apostles were such poor judges of character that they were unable to distinguish between "faithful men" who would "be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2) and those "wolves" who would ravage the flock and not tolerate sound doctrine.

This, of course, then indicts Our Lord Himself. What the heck was He thinking, picking these twelve (or eleven) idiots who were so inept that they couldn't pass on His teaching or appoint worthy ministers, even though they had the help of the Holy Ghost Himself?

Well, thank God for modern-day reformers who can help us return to the purity of biblical teaching, eh?

So what should our NT Church look like (minus, of course, any appeal to any writing outside the NT documents)?

1) The corrupted "Traditional Church" (TC) meets in special buildings designated for the purpose. The NT Church (NTC) met in homes.

2) In the TC, leaders are trained in seminaries, ordained, then assigned to a church; in the NTC, leaders were hand-picked by the people who knew them and their character.

3) In the TC, the worship is divided between clergy and laity, with the clergy (including music ministers, readers, etc.) doing all the active work; in the NT church, worship was "participatory and interactive" where "every member had a function and a contribution to make publicly."

4) In contrast to the TC's typical "rigid, inflexible" form of worship, the NT church's services "were characterized by informality, flexibility, and spontaneity."

5) Even the goals are different. The goal of a TC meeting is "worship, listening to a sermon, conferring grace, or evangelism," but in the true NT church, the goal of a meeting was "mutual edification."

6) In the TC, the "Lord's Supper" is celebrated with but a small cracker and a sip of wine; in the NTC it was a full meal.

7) My personal favorite. In the TC, the pastor/teacher "delivers monologue sermons with no opportunity for questions or input from the congregation or ‘laity’"; in contrast, in the NTC "Various brothers taught the church and allowed the congregation the opportunity to question them and/or add their own insights."

That's just a sampling of this hysterical document. What do you say to all of this? Gotta love it when modernity projects its "profound" insights back into antiquity. Actually, this entire document sounds like it was written by an embittered member of the laity who is jealous for more power and control in the church.

Whoever wrote the document has a disdain for structure; they want to meet in homes, help pick their leaders, help lead the worship service, be involved in "mutual edification" (which sounds real pretty, but lacks any substantial definition), and be able to add personal "insights" to the pastor's sermon.

Apparently the only way to pull this off is to reconstruct a vision of the New Testament Church, which is created from whole cloth and entirely out of the imagination of the individual.

No serious student or scholar of Church history would accept this invention. The Church was hierarchical from the beginning; those appointed as teachers did the teaching; the worship was structured and liturgical; the Agape feast was something distinct from the actual Eucharistia of the liturgy.

The Church met in homes for as long as they had to while they were being chased from place to place by men with swords. That's what we call a practice born out of necessity, not a pristine ideal.

When Constantine lifted the ban on Christianity, he also restored their property to them, and they finally began to build churches for the purpose of common gathering.

And why did they build those churches with so much pomp and flair? To answer that, you'd have to know the Church's early belief in the Real Presence. They built beautiful churches because each church was a domus Dei, a temple, a santuary, a palace for The King.

So I say if you want to go back to the true NT Church, my friend, then go start up a "ministry" in some third-world country where Christianity is hated and persecuted.

And while we're at it, here's another "biblical" practice that ought to be reinstituted in this ideal New Testament Church ...

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus was sitting in the window. He sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer; and being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him." And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. (Acts 20:7-11)

Sick Babies and Revisionist History

Lucy, my darling two-year-old (well, almost two), is very, very sick. Spiking a fever of 104, throwing up, coughing ... I fear she may have picked up the flu bug. Now, she's dealing with it, and we're doing things to help keep the temperature down, but I have a much bigger concern: Brendan, my six-month old. I think it's inevitable at this point that he's going to get whatever she's got. I don't see how he could avoid it.

Please remember to say a few Rosaries for the health of my kids. It's always a bit nerve-wracking to go through this, and this is the first time we've ever gone through (what appears to be) the flu. I'll just be a lot happier when they get better, when I don't have to worry about them being in pain.

Poor Lucy. She woke up in the late afternoon crying, so I held her, tried to calm her down, etc. I used some Holy Water on her and we said a few prayers together, and that was just absolutely heart-breaking. If you've never heard a two-year-old tell Mary - between sniffles and tears - that she's sick, that she needs help, that she wants to feel better, then I can't really describe it to you very well. I just thought, "Wow, I don't know any mother that could listen to that and not be moved to compassion."

I'm sure she'll be fine.

She was talking to Jesus last night, too, telling her Jesus-on-the-crucifix how sick she was - she always talks about Jesus' "owies" when she looks at the crucifix, but last night she told Jesus that she had owies too (actually, it came out, "Lucy is owie," but I think He understood).

Now if I could just get her to grasp the concept of offering up her suffering for the benefit of others ...

*********************

Isn't historical revisionism amazing? I'm collecting a list of revised stories of history just to demonstrate the point. I'm thinking it will make an interesting study.

For example, how many history textbooks record that Christopher Columbus was a devout Catholic, a daily communicant, a devoted son of Our Lady, whose primary intention in sailing for the "new world" was blatantly missionary in character?

How many textbooks accurately report that the purpose behind the Catholic crusades was the liberation of Christians and Christian cities from Muslim oppression?

How many times have you heard the lie that Constantine made Christianity the state religion, when any cursory glance at the Edict of Milan shows that the most Constantine did was grant Christianity an equal place alongside all the pagan religions?

And again, how many times have you heard the lie that the ancient Christians, or the ancient Jews, believed the world was flat?

We've all heard the extremely high number of Jews that were killed during WWII - but how many times have we heard how many Catholics were killed by Nazis in that same conflict, how many Poles, how many ... you get the idea.

This is revisionist history. And getting all of the facts seems to be getting harder and harder.

And, in light of all the fact-hiding that has been going on for centuries by anti-Catholic historians (and I'm not just talking about religious historians - don't forget, the atheists, the Jews, the Easterners, the Buddhists, the Muslims are all very much anti-Catholic as well), isn't it odd that the biggest whopper of revisionist history that we keep hearing is "the Catholic Church suppressed the truth, burned books, silenced the opposition, and forged documents in order to rewrite history?"

That, my friends, is almost worth crying over.

(If you know of any other "historical" myths that need to be corrected, do drop me a line.)

Election Results Are In!

And the winner is ... the Freemason.

Of course, since it's the Lawyers who really run this country, we'll have to wait a few months for them to confirm this victory.

The good news is that the ban on same-sex marriages appears to have passed here in Michigan.

My evening was much more exciting, however.

Took the family out for a special dinner because it's the Feast of All Souls, a first-class feast. We try to do this with every first-class feast now, and believe me, the last three days have been treating us very well. Christ the King (first-class), All Saints (first-class), and All Souls (first-class), one right after the other.

I don't think we get another first-class feast now until the Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8). But we're definitely watching the liturgical calendar now, and paying more attention to the feasts.

So we went out for dinner last night, then went over to the cemetery to say some prayers for the poor souls. That was interesting ... I have a friend who is buried at that particular location, so I went walking around trying to find his headstone. It's been more than 10 years, so I wandered for quite a while - but I had Lucy with me, and I didn't want her to get bored, so we prayed as I walked.

Her prayers are much more effective than mine, any day of the week. I'm sure the poor souls heaved a collective sigh of relief when they saw I had brought her along - "Ah, thank God! Baby prayers!"

It was interesting, I was saying, trying to teach Lucy what we were doing and why. Did she comprehend what I was telling her? She repeated a lot of it ... she's at that stage. After I explained it to her, she explained it back to me: these people are dead, they're in Purgatory, it's so sad, we need to help them, and Jesus and Mary want us to help them.

Maybe the understanding comes after the repetition. She certainly seems to have understood, after several months of repetition, her devotion to the Holy Wounds. In fact, she's at the point now where she can tell me where the five wounds are - and I love that she informs me of this as though she's lecturing me. Now, Daddy, I know you don't know this, but Jesus has owies - right here, on His hand, and right here, on His feet ...

Anyway, after that little adventure to the IHOP and the cemetery, we talked about having some fun later this week. We're going to pick up some small pumpkins, since they're bound to be on sale now, find a few pie recipies, and we're actually going to make a pumpkin pie from scratch.

Fun, eh?

Hey, it beats watching the election.