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!

Who wants to live forever?

I do.

One could almost understand contracepting when fornicating with that special someone whom you love with all your heart and are willing to share a dwelling with but are unwilling to commit to.

Almost.

We've told ourselves a lie that there is a perfect time to have a child, and that until then you shouldn't, and also we're afraid of commitment, so we push back marriage, but we've also bought into the lie that sex is essentially required in any type of meaningful relationship, so while we're not yet married we're going to act like it and live together and pay bills together and have sex, but contracept so that our play-acting at marriage doesn't yield the natural fruit of marriage...

Because that makes sense.

But what about contraception in marriage? Consider the following paraphrasation of odd exchange I had with the woman who gave me my last haircut.

Me: I have a daughter who's almost three, and a son who's almost one. How about you?

Her: I'm getting married in May, and we're not having any kids.

Oh? Why not?

I was a surrogate for a gay couple when I was 20, I've been through pregnancy, once was enough for me.

I did not comment on this. Later in the conversation...

Our friends who have six kids...

Six kids? Weird.

Later...

My mom's one of five.

Weird.

Later...

My dad's one of thirteen.

Weird.

The first and most obvious question is whether she missed the day at cosmetology school where they covered not insulting the client's friends and family. Of course, maybe the school skipped that class because it should be obvious that labeling someone's family size as "weird" - especially after stating that you're not having any because being a surrogate for two men who practice and promote homosexuality, and who are calling their cohabitation a marriage - is rude, not to mention a little crazy. In the order of human human history and genetics, that mindset misses the mark.

But it's more than that. Around the world, our population is in decline. Married couples regularly have at most two children, maybe three (if the first two were both boys or both girls). Population in the so-called modern world is declining. Why? How did we go from my grandfather with 10 sons having no cause for shame when he debated at the city gates (Psalm 126(127)), to being weird?

Well, I think the Prof answers this one pretty well:

Ultimately, I suspect it is pessimism, a succumbing to despair. We have seen what this world has to offer, and the world has been found wanting. We have been told by the secular world that there is nothing else after this, and told by too many religions that the hereafter is just an idealized version of this. Neither of those is appealing! Neither of those are things I want to subject my children to, let alone become immortal in.

For what are children but immortality? In his children, Abraham is alive today. The Patriarch of Israel was given immortality both in this life and the next because of his faithfulness to God.

Already I see my wife and I in our children. The arrows in my quiver are weapons which I shall loose upon this world to make my mark upon it and reshape it. They are my ultimate weapon against the spread of secularism, socialism, and every other belief which is contrary to the truth - if you can't convince 'em, outbreed 'em! I shall live on in my children as my father lives on in me, and his father in him. If I am faithful and acquit myself as a father, my children will spread the truth I have come to love, with their own (and hopefully even better) understanding.

Why do I have the desire to conquer this world? Because I know what comes next. I know that it is beyond my wildest imaginations, and I know that my children will have their own chance to inherit that kingdom too.

Let us be prayerful, and responsible, but not swayed by the empty promises of this world's "perfectly sized family". The perfect size is the one which God calls us to have, be it 1, 2, or 18; whether those arrows are yours genetically or through adoption. But no matter what, let us not fear to have that 4th child, or fifth child, or even the first. Let us face it with a spirit of courage and adventure, knowing not where it will lead, daring to put our mark on the future.

To live forever.

"Merry Christ Mass!" or The Scandal of Christmas

On this, the Vigil of Christmas, Let me wish all of you a very blessed Christmas, or "Χmas" if you prefer to practice your Greek!.

I was reading through some comments on Facebook when I ran across this little gem. It's an exposition on the meaning of "Merry Christmas" from one of those groups that believes Christmas is a pagan holiday. It tells all about how the Eeeeeevil Catholics have tricked millions of "so-called 'Christians'" [sic] into blaspheming by being happy about the "pain, bleeding, suffering and death of Christ."

I can't wait to hear his exposition on "Good Friday."

Setting aside his misunderstanding of the theology of the Mass, he is still right to be shocked. On the very day which we celebrate Our Lord's wondrous incarnation, we call to mind His death.

We celebrate the birth of Christ with a Mass, wherein we are united by the sacrifice of the Mass with the sacrifice of Our Lord, hanging on the Cross.

The scandal is this: to ransom a slave, God the Father gave us His only Son. He was born to die for our sins, a spotless, unblemished, sacrificial lamb.

To have a Merry Christmas is to celebrate that Our Lord chose to humble himself that He might die for us as one of us. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).

So let us indeed Glory in the Cross which is the scandal of Christmas. Let us praise God, and give thanks that, knowing the pain He was to endure, Our Lord still loved us so much to take our form, to take the form of a slave, to come be our Emmanuel and rescue us.

What child is this, who, laid to rest,
On Mary’s lap is sleeping,
Whom angels greet with anthems sweet
While shepherds watch are keeping?
This, this is Christ the King,
Whom shepherds guard and angels sing;
Haste, haste to bring Him laud,
The babe, the son of Mary!

Why lies He in such mean estate
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christian, fear: for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce him through,
The Cross be borne for me, for you;
Hail, hail the Word Made Flesh,
The babe, the son of Mary!

So bring Him incense, gold, and myrrh;
Come, peasant, king, to own Him!
The King of Kings salvation brings;
Let loving hearts enthrone Him!
Raise, raise the song on high!
The virgin sings her lullaby.
Joy! joy! for Christ is born,
The babe, the son of Mary!

Merry Christmas!

Blessed are the Colt Model Ps?

Somehow I don't think that our lord was referring to the revolver when he said Blessed are the peacemakers...

Still, it is interesting that a device used to project slugs of metal at high velocity, usually with the intent of ripping holes in the human body so as to make it inoperable, should bear the title "Peacemaker."

The flippant answer is that gun manufacturers are merchants of death, and that it is simply clever marketing to instill a false sense of security for owners of their product, and a feeling of vulnerability in their target customer base. Perhaps there is even some truth to this.

However, I think it speaks to a sad but nonetheless true reality about this fallen world of ours. It is sometimes hard to remember that there is simultaneously room and a need for both Gandhi and Patton. Our Lord is typified as both the Lamb of God, and the Lion of Judah. To put it more eloquently, I turn to Chesterton:

The world did not lose the last charge of Sir James Douglas or the banner of Joan the Maid. And sometimes this pure gentleness and this pure fierceness met and justified their juncture; the paradox of all the prophets was fulfilled, and, in the soul of St. Louis, the lion lay down with the lamb. But remember that this text is too lightly interpreted. It is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is--Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? THAT is the problem the Church attempted; THAT is the miracle she achieved.

There is a reason that Holy Mother Church has a doctrine of just self defense, and of just defense of others. There is a reason why She has a just war doctrine, which says that ultimately war should be avoided as much as is prudent, but sometimes the prudential solution is in fact to engage in bloodshed, for the betterment of mankind.

It has been said that fighting for peace is like fornicating for virginity, but I find myself dissatisfied by the sentiment. It sounds nice, rings well (especially among college students and the internet, where another term is often used in place of "fornicating"), but it is, I think, dissatisfying. Insert Godwin's-Law-Fulfilling comment about the U.S.A. stopping the Nazi war & death machine in World War II here.

I think that's about enough of the Nazis for one blog post, don't you?

I've taken a bit of a divergence, and would like to return to the scripture we started with:

Beati pacifici, quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur.

Blessed the peace makers (pax + facio: I make, arrange peace), for sons of God they will be called.

It is not the peaceful who are blessed, it is those who bring about peace. Our Lord does not specify how. I have another scripture which strikes me at the moment, John 2:14ff:

And he found in the temple them that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.

An account of this event occurs in all four of the Gospels, in one form or another. Yes, it even occurs in the selfsame Gospel in which Our Lord delvers the 8 Beatitudes. The Son of God, who would himself be scourged and crucified, offering no resistance to those who sought His life, gets physically violent with those who are turning the temple into a marketplace.

To put it even a little more bluntly, read Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven.
A time to be born and a time to die.
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted.
A time to kill, and a time to heal.
A time to destroy, and a time to build.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh.
A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather.
A time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
A time to get, and a time to lose.
A time to keep, and a time to cast away.
A time to rend, and a time to sew.
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.
A time of love, and a time of hatred.
A time of war, and a time of peace.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think the peacemaker was named correctly. Sometimes we must be both lion and lamb. In this fallen world, some are called to have the capacity for violence as a means for the imposition of justice, tempered by virtue and a true love of God an neighbor, such that we will only use it as a last resort.

Much like war is not the answer, neither is violence, though it may be necessary to curb the violence of those who will not listen to reason. If I may be so bold, there is even a place for the warrior in the Body of Christ.

James on Parenthood

My brethren, count it all joy, when you shall fall into divers temptations; Knowing that the trying of your faith worketh patience. And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing. But if any of you want wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men abundantly, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Bearing in mind that "divers temptations" refers to trials and tribulations, it is clear that James is talking all about parenthood. Yes, children are a blessing, and a joy, and a gift. That doesn't change the fact that a toddler doesn't particularly see the value in quietly sitting still for an hour, even if it is for the liturgy which gives us life.

Picture it. It's halfway through the homily. You still have the Creed, the Eucharistic Prayer, Eucharist, announcements, and the closing hymn. The toddler is fussy, fidgety, noisy. You haven't really been able to pay attention to the readings, let alone the homily, because the toddler is now attempting to distribute her snacks all over the floor for no apparent reason.

You're stressed, you're sure that everyone is looking at you, annoyed with you. (Side note, Spanish Mass is the opposite, every time we try to hush the small thing, all the abuelitas around us tell us not to worry, she's not bothering anyone. Reason #629 to stop being dumb about immigration: abuelitas!)

Then it happens. Everyone is kneeling for the consecration, and your baby girl kneels down too, folding her little hands. Or she turns to you and your spouse, telling you that it is time to pray, and making sure your hands are folded in the right way. Or she will be pointing excitedly at the altar calling, "Jesus! Jesus! Amen! Amen!" (Side note, our little on calls all priests "Amen," starting with pictures of our former pastor from when she was baptized).

Two things that help are words Our Lord said in the Gospel of Mark. Mark 2:27:

And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

Mark 10:14b:

Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.

If I may be so bold, the sabbath was made for the toddler, and not the toddler for the sabbath.

It is hard sometimes, feeling like every eye is upon you, judging you. Feeling like you're not being fully present because you have to split your attention between the homily and the toddler, trying to absorb the lesson while trying to make sure the seats don't absorb all of her juice. But then He answers, "Suffer the little children to come unto me..."

The kingdom of God is of such as these, and who am I to be ashamed for bringing my child before the King? Would it be better for me to stay at home, and deprive her of the graces of Mass? Would it be better for us to sit as far back as possible so as to "not cause a scene," and yet thereby hinder her ability to become engaged in the liturgy?

It is not easy - as anyone who has ever at with us at Mass can attest to - but it is our responsibility, and with a little grace even our perfection.

And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.

Ahem...

Hey, I just logged on, and this is crazy, but I've got some free time, so blog post maybe?

It has been about 4 months since I last posted, a week after my son was born. New job, moving, new baby, travel, and life in general makes for a very full schedule! However, eventually things start to settle down, fall into patterns, and give me a little time to ruminate and post!

Nothing particularly profound for this one, though I'm prepping a few that take a peek at life the universe and everything. Should be fun. In the meantime, I will share some thoughts I've had on the upcoming election.

First, Steve King has an awesome campaign staff. He's been known to put his foot in his mouth a time or two, and his ad writers are managing to make that a positive. Amazing.

Secondly, did Christie Vilsak have some random washington-type write her commercials? That 7-layer salad bit was just dumb. It felt like something someone who has never been to Iowa thought would resonate with Iowans.

Third, I'm not particularly fond of Romney, but he's definitely running a much better campaign than McCain. Praise the Lord.

Fourth, is it just me, or does Obama's campaign sound a little like this?
I mean, really...

Fifth, when is Mr. President going to stop whining about everything he's inherited? The economy wasn't great, no argument, but it's gotten worse under his administration and policies. The prudence and success of Iraq and Afghanistan may be debated, but we are seemingly, the assassination of Osama bin Laden aside, no closer to any meaningful, peaceful resolution in either of those (despite his promises to end both wars). He has also managed to get us involved in at least one other military conflict that comes to mind. Mr. President, with all due respect you were elected to lead, not to whine. Your protestations ceased to be reasons and became excuses about two years ago, and are quite frankly beneath you.

Sixth, I think that rational adults can have a discussion on the pros and cons of a continued Obama presidency vs. a Romney presidency. However, I am really six of two things: the Republicans saying that it was "Romney's Time," as if he somehow deserved a turn running for president; and the Democrats saying that President Obama "deserves" another four years.

Let us get one thing straight: the presidency is earned, never deserved.

You may believe that Romney was the only potential candidate to take on the President, and you may even have been right (though I was really looking forward to Herman Cain, personally). But because it was his turn? Wrong.

You may believe that the country will be better off under another four years of President Obama as opposed to four years of Romney. There is a chance you are right, but it is not because the President "deserves" another four years.

I think that's it for now... I am really looking forward to being done with this election cycle.