The Day of the Mothers

Happy Mother's Day! In honor of this occasion, I thought I'd write a letter.

Dear Planned Parenthood,

You really don't get it, do you?

Musingly,

Jeb

Oh, that reminds me of another letter I wanted to write today!

Dear Planned Parenthood White House,

You really don't get it, do you?

Musingly,

Jeb

Hmmm... That doesn't sound very Mother's Dayish, does it? Some of you may not recognize the first picture, it comes from a campaign called "No Mother's Day", which advises mothers to not have any contact with their families to highlight the dangers of... well... pregnancy, actually. You know, the first nine months of motherhood.

Planned Parenthood gets the letter because they're a supporter of this group which promotes access to abortion, because without abortion, women die.

The White House is just either dense, or pulling a massive troll. I haven't made up my mind yet.

So here's my actual mother's day letter. For reals this time.

Dear Mom,

Happy Mother's Day! I'm sorry that we don't get to celebrate with you today, but as Sean better have told you, we awoke to a sick almost-three-year old. Having received your motherly attentions as an ill youth, I know that you understand.

I want to thank you for the mother that you have been to me, raising me to love God and the Church, to love music and knowledge, and for always being there for me (like when I break down panicking because I don't know how to pack my dorm room to move out!)

Anyway, I thought I would share something with you that I have learned, partially because you helped me learn how to think, not just what to think. What is that thing?

You're welcome.

I know that I say that all the time because I'm so awesome, and also because I've given you a daughter in law and two grandchildren, but today I want to say you're welcome for making you a mother.

The thing is, God blessed your marriage to Dad so that my life might come from your love, and as awesome as I am, I certainly was not responsible for that. However, by the grace of being conceived, surviving what was from all accounts a somewhat scary delivery, by being, I get to give you the gift of motherhood; what is a mother without a child?

So I guess that's my message to you, and through this blog to everyone: mother's day isn't about you. Okay, well it is, but not in a vacuum. It's not a day to celebrate Donna Evans qua Donna Evans, but to celebrate Donna Evans qua Mater. It is a day that you could not celebrate in the same way without me, without Sean, without Ethan. Without the children you cared for in Texas, Kentucky, and Virginia, without the college students who came to consider you as a mother away from home at St. Thomas.

That's the great thing about motherhood, it is the gift of life itself, and of a special relationship that is unique between each mother and each of her children. Sometimes I've gotten a little jealous of other people considering you as a type of mother, but really I am grateful. It's a sign of what a mother you are that your motherhood cannot be contained.

I love you mom!

Jeremiah (because that's my name, even if it is too long for a little boy)

De Maria Immaculata Conceptione

I was reading comments on a picture posted to the Facebook group Things Jesus Never Said (almost always a mistake). I saw some questions about the Virgin Mary, and of course thought, "Hey, rather than get caught up in a forum where charity and good will are almost impossible, how about I blog about it!!!" What could possibly go wrong?

I've already written on the topic of Mary here, but I will certainly never exhaust all there is to be said about our Blessed Mother.

I want to take a moment to remind you all that when I speak of prayer, to and honoring of Mary, we are speaking of "Hyperdulia," that is, an exalted form of the reverence and veneration given to the Saints (dulia), which is distinct and lower than the adoration and worship given to God alone and to the Sacred Eucharist which is the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Second Person of God (latria).

I was listening to the Catholic radio station where I live (Iowa Catholic Radio @ 1150 AM, 88.5 FM, & 94.5 FM in central Iowa) when I heard someone speaking on the topic of Mary and Her Immaculate Conception, and I wanted to share that.

So many things about Mary are fitting, not necessary. It was not necessary for God to save us, or to save us in this way thus requiring a human mother, &c, &c. However, He did, and given that He followed the decision He made very consistently.

One of the biggest confusions regarding the Immaculate Conception is to think that it was Christ who was immaculately conceived, when in fact it was His mother, who at the moment of her coming into existence, was granted the special grace of being free from original sin.

Fine, but why is that necessary? Aren't Catholics just saying that Mary didn't need a savior?

What does the Doctor have to do
with Salvation History?

It is important to remember that while He does act in time (at times), God is Himself eternal, outside of time. Time is one of His creations, subject to Him. Mary received the grace of freedom from sin before the physical reality of Christ, but not before the Second Person of the Trinity existed. It is a gift given by her Son to prepare her to be His mother. It is a very deep mystery, but suffice it to say that while it is not in the normal order of salvation, it is still accomplished by Christ, and is not anything innate of Mary, or anything of which she was meritorious (other than her Fiat, but that was greatly enabled by her freedom from sin, but that was due to the immaculate conception, which happened before the Fiat, but...).

As the Doctor would say, it's all timey-wimey.

So for a moment, accept that should God will that the Virgin Mary be free of original sin from the moment of conception, He is capable of it. That still doesn't explain why it should be so.

Well, as with all things pertaining to Mary, her identity as the Immaculate Conception actually points to a reality about Jesus, and therefore about God.

Christ of course was "...like us in all things but sin...," and that includes original sin. For Jesus to be the unblemished Lamb of God, He had to be, well, unblemished!

Where do we get our stain of original sin? From our parents.

If Mary had had upon her the stain of original sin, she would have passed it onto her Son. As He partook of her humanity, He would have partaken of our stain, but that is simply impossible. Else how can Paul say in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that: For our sakes God made Him who did not know sin, to be sin, so that in Him we might become the very holiness of God?

Well, I suppose one could simply answer that it was Christ who was immaculately conceived, that by the fact of His Deity, His humanity was preserved from original sin.

But wait there's more...

See, now that this has touched your lips,
your wickedness is removed, your sin purged.

In the 6^th chapter of Isaiah, the prophet recounts his call from the Lord. In verse 5 he proclaims Woe is me, I am doomed!. In other translations it is rendered as, I am unravelling! What causes this? He goes on to explain that I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!"

The mere sight of God is causing him to come apart. Why? Because as the Seraphim cry out in verse 3, God is "Holy, Holy, Holy!" The speaker noted that His Holiness is the only attribute of God which is repeated thrice in this manner. God is never "Merciful, Merciful, Merciful," or "Just, Just, Just," but He is "Holy, Holy, Holy!" So much so that whereas our first parents walked with God every day in the garden of Eden, from the Fall to the Incarnation, it was death to look upon the Face of God, or to even touch such holy things as the Ark of the Covenant, save for a very very few (e.g. Moses).

In other words, had Mary not been pure, herself holy as God intended us to be, free of original sin, immaculate, she could not have survived the very act of incarnation. To have God indwell in her physically, she had to be pure lest she "unravel."

It is only after the incarnation that we who are sinful may look upon the face of God, which is Jesus.

It is only after the incarnation that we who are broken are given intimate contact with all of the Godhead, for it is Christ who reveals to us the Father, gives Himself to us in the Eucharist, and sends to us the Holy Spirit.

It is only after the incarnation that we who are fallen able to receive on our tongue what the Immaculate Conception gave to the Son - His Body and Blood.

O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
didst prepare a worthy dwelling place for thy Son,
we beseech thee that,
as by the foreseen death of this, thy Son,
thou didst preserve her from all stain,
so too thou wouldst permit us,
purified through her intercession,
to come unto thee.

Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son,
who livest and reignest with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost,
God,
world without end.

Amen.

Responsible Communication

The fact that
"to infer"
and "to imply"
mean different things
betrays the awful truth that
we are responsible
both for what we say and how we say it,
but also for what we hear and how we hear it.

A Well Deserved Reproach

My people, what have I done to you How have I offended you? Answer me!

I led you out of Egypt, from slavery to freedom, but you led your Savior to the cross.

For forty years I led you safely through the desert. I fed you with manna from heaven, and brought you to a land of plenty; but you led your Savior to the cross.

What more could I have done for you. I planted you as my fairest vine, but you yielded only bitterness: when I was thirsty you gave me vinegar to drink, and you pierced your Savior with a lance.

For your sake I scourged your captors and their firstborn sons, but you brought your scourges down on me.

I led you from slavery to freedom and drowned your captors in the sea, but you handed me over to your high priests.

I opened the sea before you, but you opened my side with a spear.

I led you on your way in a pillar of cloud, but you led me to Pilate's court.

I bore you up with manna in the desert, but you struck me down and scourged me.

I gave you saving water from the rock, but you gave me gall and vinegar to drink.

For you I struck down the kings of Canaan. but you struck my head with a reed.

I gave you a royal scepter, but you gave me a crown of thorns.

I raised you to the height of majesty, but you have raised me high on a cross.

My people, what have I done to you How have I offended you? Answer me!

Habemus Papam!

Miserando atque eligendo.

Lowly yet chosen.
By showing compassion and by choosing.
(Thanks to Fr. Z for the explanation!)

So begins the 266th pontificate of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ 2,000 years ago.

I'm especially struck today by the pope's role as "Pontifex Maximus." Pontifex comes from pons (bridge) + facere (to make), so "bridge builder." The Pope is the great bridge builder, between us and God via Papal infallibility, but also the bridges that bind human society.

There is a particular bridge that immediately popped into mind with the fact of a Jesuit Pope who was also the ordinary of the Eastern Catholics in Argentina. It has been said that the Society of Jesus was founded (or at least used frequently) to combat Protestantism and Islam. He's basically been drowning in both western and eastern theology for some time now, in a certain sense "breathing with both longs of the Church" even though he only has one himself.

To state that more succinctly, I am curious to see what if anything he does to continue the creation of ordinariates and other forms of outreach to bring Protestants back into the fold, and to encourage the conversion of our Muslim brothers and sisters.

No matter what, I'm looking forward to seeing what His Holiness Pope Francis will do.

V. Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco
R. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius.

Deus, omnium fidelium pastor et rector, famulum tuum Francisco, quem pastorem Ecclesiæ tuæ præesse voluisti, propitius respice: da ei, quæsumus, verbo et exemplo, quibus præest, proficere: ut ad vitam, una cum grege sibi credito, perveniat sempiternam. Per Christum, Dominum nostrum. Amen.

So it's that easy, huh?

Who knew it was this easy? According to Democratic strategist Zerlina Maxwell, guns aren't the answer, it's reeducation.

Answer to what, you may ask? Rape, of course!

<sarcasm> Ms. Maxwell apparently thinks that the hundreds of thousands of women who get raped every year just aren't saying "no" loud enough. </sarcasm>

For any man, or for any boy, a simple no should be more than enough. However, we have bad people, and we have people who let themselves go to drugs and alcohol, so personally I think a woman should be free to back up her no in whatever way is necessary, but maybe that's just me.

Now, I will admit that what she says in the video isn't quite as bad as it may seem. She's not stupid, just myopically naîve. She has a good point to make but in classic partisan politic form, she ignores the supporting points, focusing on only one aspect of the issue of rape. It's not that she's wrong in her solution per se, but rather in thinking that hers is a sufficient solution.

Enough chattering, roll film!

So yeah... Now, as to Hannity's comment on ball point pens, I think he underestimates their effectiveness, and I think that any woman should be able to defend herself with a ballpoint pen should the need arise. I however also agree with him and his guest that should said woman rather be packing heat, go for it.

Ms. Maxwell is right, of course, that we need to do more to stop rape at the societal level. Kind of like this. We all have the responsibility to change society, to hold ourselves and others accountable, and I too would rather the woman not need to defend herself in the first places. Of course, thinking that that is enough requires closing one's eyes to reality.

One of the most pathetic parts of this is that Ms. Maxwell is not alone in her thinking! And it gets worse, as the politicians mentioned in this article over at PJ Media are essentially arguing that not only are societal fixes sufficient, but that the victims are responsible for not doing enough to mitigate their risks.

We all know that if they were Republicans, the media would be all over them, but that just means it is up to us to bring their misogynistic and dangerous stupidity to light.

So, to sum up: Yes, we need to do more to reduce the situations that put women at risk; however, at the same time we must not take away anything which she may wish to use to defend herself. Work for the better world, but recognize that the one we're in has got some serious ugly.

P.S. Read this Wikipedia article on anit-rape devices. Discuss.

And this is why we need more Latin.

Hoo boy... This one is perhaps a little more understandable than r/atheism's "do inanimate objects have souls" question, but seriously...

Lemme back up a second. I started noticing a lot of references to an entity known as "Jesus is Savior." Thought I'd check it out. Wow...

As someone in the field of software and the internet, let me start by saying that first off, the 90's called, they want their terrible web page back. It just goes on and on and on with random links and pictures, all over some random cosmic backgroundy thing and yellow links with dire portent (and also the picture of a Pope and a protestant presenting the NIV along with Satan - because someone is really good with history I guess...)

I cannot stress enough how much of an eyesore this page is.

Go ahead, click the picture.
I dare you...

Anyway, I clicked on the link of the Pope presenting the world with the NIV (wow... I almost can't type that without cracking up). After all, I have my own issues with the NIV, so let's see if we can find some common ground.

No, probably not.

Most of the little snippets are pretty obviously simple translational differences, more than likely the choice of idiom vs. exact translation. That or things where with a little digging, you find that the KJV is completely wrong (like how they put the entirety of the Lord's Prayer in Luke, but it's actually not all there... Whoops!)

The one that really caught my attention though was under the heading "The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer!" The complaint is that the NIV renders "Lucifer" as "Morning Star" in several places, such as Isaiah 14:12:

Quomodo cecidisti de caelo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris?
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? (Douay-Reihms Translation)
How you have fallen from heaven, O Morning Star, son of the dawn...(NIV Tranwslation)

I vote for maintaining Lucifer, personally, but here's why the NIV isn't wholly wrong.

Lucifer is a title, just like Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. For an angel, their name, their title, is their calling. Michael means "who is like God?" That is to say, the meaning of his existence is to point to the strength and power of God. When Michael casts Lucifer into hell, it is not by his own strength, but by showing God's strength.

So what does Lucifer mean? Well, it's Latin, a compound of "lux" and "fero", that is of "light" and "carry." Lucifer means "light bringer." It is a title: the angel who fell to become the prince of darkness was called to be the one bringing God's truth. Ironic, no? In any case, this light bringer that arises in the morning was also typified as the "morning star." Or rather, the morning star was also called a (the) light bringer.

Upon Satan's utterance of "non serviam" (which is nicely contradicted by Mary's "Fiat"), the eternal second person of God takes upon himself the mantle of light bringer, and with it the title of "lucifer."

Fun fact, the last stanza of the Exsultet references Christ as "lucifer" several times:

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.

I leave the translation of that passage as an exercise for you, dear reader, in preparation for the upcoming feast to which it is proper. Enjoy!