Casey Truelove's profileCasey TruelovePhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
Public folders
Casey TrueloveFebruary 06 Pun of the DayA friend was using rollerblades to get around campus and another friend commented: "Wow, those are handy!" To which I replied: "No, they're footy." December 21 The Bible and Gay "Marriage"Newsweek Magazine recently published an article by Lisa Miller trying to argue for gay marriage based on the Bile: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653 Unfortunately to shout out a pro-gay marriage slogan is rather simple, but to refute it takes a real explanation. In hopes of a fair debate, let’s look at Miller’s article. First she states that she’s going “to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does.” One thing Miller fails to understand is that the Bible isn’t a classroom textbook. There’s no glossary entry under “marriage” in the back. So she’s starting with a straw man argument that only has even the slightest effect against a Fundamentalist theology. Any serious biblical exegete can see that she’s just reading into the text what she wants it to say. Any second-rate hack journalist can do that. Miller’s basic premise is: there are examples in the Bible that show people not living out marriage properly, therefore gay marriage should be okay. If you really think about it, she doesn’t actually connect A to B, but let’s put some connecting dots in there to try to understand how she gets there. One assumes that she thinks that the Bible gives these bad examples, therefore the Bible's definition is poor or non-existent, so it cannot be a trustworthy source and therefore we can make marriage whatever we want it to be. Not only is her exegesis poor, but her syllogism could use some work too. Yes, there are many examples of people (even good people) in the Bible who don’t live out their marriages properly. What Miller fails to consider here is that these are examples of what NOT to do. In fact, if we consider that from all of these poor examples, we see outcomes of strife, these particular examples act more as warnings than as models. The big lesson here is that when someone goes against God’s plan for marriage, he/she ends up causing disaster. Her first example is of Abraham. We all know (or should know) of God’s plan for Abraham (Abram) and Sarah (Sarai) and how God promised Abraham to be the Father of many, but his wife was barren. God promised, but Abraham and Sarah doubted, so they decided to take matters into their own hands and have Abraham sleep with Hagar (Sarah’s maid). God granted life (Ishmael) from that union, but it was not the heir (Isaac) which God was promising. Isaac wouldn’t come for another 13 years, but he did come and this caused a division between Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah and Isaac--eventually to the point that Hagar and Ishmael were sent out away from the tribe to fend for themselves. To this day, the sons of Isaac and the sons of Ishmael have had conflict. Had Abraham and Sarah just waited for God to provide and stayed within the normal bounds of marriage, no problem would have occurred. This example shows us the bad end to which breaking the marriage covenant leads. I fail to see what about this example argues against a traditional marriage and I see even less how this might make a case FOR homosexual “marriage.” Miller goes further and lists Jacob, David, Solomon, and “the kings of Judah and Israel” as polygamists. Yet not a single time is this explained as a good thing. In fact, it’s usually the source of treachery and deceit. Add to that the question of which “kings of Judah and Israel” she was speaking, because I can’t think of many, in either succession, after Solomon who were polygamists. One might consider polygamy implied in the lines that describe a king as participating in the sins of his father so-and-so, but that is usually dealing with idolatry. Again, these are examples of what NOT to do. These leaders were given the chance to act rightly and they chose not to. What happened to them? The Northern Kingdom fell to invaders (722 BC) and left the Southern Kingdom prey to the Babylonians (586 BC). What about this situation says: “follow this example”? Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s an example of how to live. Miller then states that Jesus was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments. Well, Jesus still IS single and His Church continues to preach a detachment from earthly things. When confronted with the question of God or anything earthly (spouse included), in order to do well, one must choose God. Thankfully God doesn’t often put people in that situation. How does this say that people of the same sex should (or even could) get married? Miller then lists St. Paul’s preference for people to remain single, consecrated to God. There is no argument that St. Paul looked at the consecrated life as the highest calling. The Catholic Church today continues to laud those vocations of celibacy. St. Paul also wrote: “husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church” (i.e. be willing to lay down your lives for them). Wait, you read it correctly, St. Paul wrote: “husbands, love your wives,” not: “husbands, love your husbands,” or “husbands, love your husbands and wives.” How someone thinks this leads to an endorsement for same sex “marriages” is beyond me. Miller then questions who would look to the Bible as a how-to script. Implying this to be foolish, she states that “the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.” It’s not so hard to knock straw men over. If I haven’t made this abundantly clear, the Bible is not written in a how-to script fashion, so her question and implication both have a faulty premise. No one, except perhaps some Fundamentalists, reads the Bible as a how-to manual. It has to be understood within the context of proper interpretation. That’s why Jesus left us a Church, founded on St. Peter (Matthew 16) and appointed the other apostles (Matthew 18) to officiate with Peter in the absence of Jesus’ visible presence. He opened their minds to understand the scriptures [Luke 24:45] and sent them the Holy Spirit, who would guide them into all truth [John 16:13, Acts 2]. Because of the power of the Holy Spirit, these officials and their successors, when working in communion with each other, have never erred when making an official definition regarding FAITH and/or MORALS. This is to be distinguished from other categories like science--the Church doesn't make officially binding statements on science. Many who argue against the Church bring up the Galileo incident, but fail to realize that his censure wasn't because of what he was teaching, but because of how he was teaching it. Most people in the Church agreed with him, but it wasn't yet given over to adequate scrutiny. See: http://www.chnetwork.org/forums/forum18/2517.html In this instance, the Church has defined what marriage is--a covenant bond, elevated by Christ to the level of Sacrament (for the baptized), in which a man and a woman are united by God. For the official statement of the Church, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s section on Marriage: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3art7.shtml In such a union, the man and the woman undergo an ontological change, by which the grace of the sacrament unites them to each other and draws the two closer to God. This ontological change does not happen when people merely “shack up”--even if children may result from such a physical union. Using that definition, two men, two women or more than two people do not constitute a marriage. One might liken the complementarity of the sexes as necessary for a marriage to the necessity for salt to be combined with water to make salt water. I cannot combine salt with salt to get salt water, nor can I combine water with water to get salt water. Salt water, by its definition, needs the combination of the two different ingredients. The Church also defines homosexual activity as something intrinsically disordered. See the Catechism’s section on the Vocation to Chastity, subsection Chastity and Homosexuality: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM Let’s put this into a perspective that many of you may not have considered before. Homosexuality is not a trait, but a temptation. Everyone is tempted to do certain things that he or she ought not to do. Homosexual attraction is a temptation to lust after a person (or people) of the same sex. It may be a deep desire, but that doesn’t make it any less a temptation. Let’s say that I was tempted to steal things. I may have had that temptation for as long as I can remember or it may have just hit me one day. Regardless, I am tempted to steal. I am then forced to make a decision. Do I fall to that temptation and steal things or do I allow other people the goods that they are due, resisting the temptation to take them for myself? In both cases (homosexual activity and theft), there is an immoral act to which one feels drawn. One must strive, by God’s grace, not to fall to that temptation. Thankfully, if one has fallen, God offers us Reconciliation, but that Reconciliation requires a turning away from the sin and an effort not to do it again. God has given us the Sacrament of Reconciliation as the means by which our contrition is made perfect and our union with Him is reestablished. God will continue to give us chances as long as we are trying to resist what temptations we are given and attempting to live pure, holy lives for Him. I digress. I’m already over 1500 words into my response and I’ve barely covered the first paragraph of the article. I’m going to have to jump through a little faster if I ever hope to finish this comment. Although there are so many errors throughout the article that I’ll probably still be writing for a while. Later in the article she mentions that marriage offers practical benefits. The thing that most people don’t realize is that most (if not all) of these benefits she lists are available to non-married persons as well. They just have to arrange them. Then she states: “As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them.” That’s it? Wow! If that is all that marriage is, why is it so special? Any two people can commit before God to love, honor, cherish and take care of each other. If that is really all that marriage is, why does someone need a title? By writing this whole article, Miller obviously recognizes that there has to be something else to it. Later on she nails it when she admits that marriage is a sacrament. (Not even all Protestant denominations admit that, so she is to be commended for getting at least the vocabulary of the truth. One can, however, see that she unfortunately doesn’t understand what a sacrament is.) Next Miller tries to make her earlier claims valid by asserting that: “Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married.” She has apparently forgotten that scripture lists homosexual activity as gravely immoral action. Regardless if the punishment (death) might seem severe in our time, the fact that the action is just as opposed to God’s will cannot change because God’s will never changes. She tries to play this off by stating that examples of traditional families are scarcely to be found. She apparently has also forgotten about Adam and Eve, Noah and his wife, Abraham and Sarah (aside from their one failure to live as God wanted them), Zechariah and Elizabeth, Mary and Joseph (although quite exceptional, still traditional), Tobit and Anna, their son Tobiah and Sarah, and many others. Miller posits the idea that “the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology.” This “brave new world” does nothing to change the fact that homosexual acts do not accord with God’s design--if it's wrong, it always has been and always will be. “And besides,” she continues, “heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time." Yes, infertile heterosexuals like Abraham and Sarah (barren, yet parents of Isaac) or like Zechariah and Elizabeth (barren, yet parents of John the Baptist) get married all the time. As long as the couple is OPEN to receive life (if God were to bless them with a miracle child), not necessarily intending pregnancy, their union is fine. Their barrenness doesn’t effect the morality of their marriage. Miller notes that Jesus never mentions homosexuality. True, He is not recorded to ever have said anything about homosexuality. He also never mentions boiling in oil, or drawing and quartering people, but most of us can recognize that these things are inherently evil. Jesus does, however, mention Sodom and Gomorrah (towns that were destroyed because of their immorality, which specifically included homosexual activity) as unbearable on the day of judgment (Matthew 10:11-15). Jesus gave the apostles much more than just what is written in the scriptures. The entirety of the revelation He gave to the apostles (that which has been passed down orally and in writing) is commonly labeled the “deposit of faith.” And that deposit has been faithfully taught by the Church down through the centuries and guarded by the Church from distortion. “But,” she continues, “he [Jesus] roundly condemns divorce.” I think it’s funny that here she recognizes that divorce is an evil, but is arguing for homosexual marriage. Miller states: “If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course...” This is an attempt at misdirection: A) there are plenty of good marriages in the Bible (as explained above), she chooses not to recognize them and B) the opponents of gay-”marriage” are excited about what marriage REALLY IS and how other people would dare to propose that they could play God and control what actually constitutes a marriage C) they're also upset that people are trying to force something immoral to become publicly acceptable. Miller knows that the Bible condemns homosexual acts, so she tries to discredit those condemnations: “Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines...” Really? I totally missed when Miller was ordained as the universal interpreter of the Bible. I guess I’ve been busy studying theology at grad school for the past 4 months, so I must have missed that news item. I wasn’t aware that she could now decide which lines in the Bible are considered “throw away.” Sure Leviticus has many details about the sacrificial system, but that system was the preparation for the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Leviticus might also have practices that seem strange to us, but they are the bases for many modern procedures. Consider, for example, Lepers. They were ordered to stay away from the community. This is the beginning of today’s quarantine. She went on to state: “Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?” We would take it more serious because Leviticus directly calls homosexual activity “an abomination.” The book lists it as something that is definitely wrong. The number of words it takes to say so does not always deal with how important it is--often extra words just means that it’s something that takes a lot more to describe. Calling something an abomination pretty much sums it up--it’s bad; don’t do it. Miller tries to argue against St. Paul’s condemnation of men “inflamed with lust for one another,” as a perversion. She tries to get us to believe that this isn’t referring to men lusting after men. That phrase, however, is pretty straight forward. Try all you want to misconstrue it, but when you really look at it, this phrase still hits you square in the nose: “lust for one another . . . perversion” Miller next makes appeal to the condemnation of divorce: “Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.” This is a good thing to point out. People need to take marriage more seriously. However, just because there are many people who poorly live out their marriage vows, doesn’t mean we should redefine what marriage is (even if we could). Rather, we should stress the importance of marriage. Trying to change marriage because people are poorly living it out makes about as much sense as trying to change laws to allow manslaughter because there are so many murders. And the reason St. Paul "argues more strenuously against divorce" is because it was something that needed more attention. Both acts are wrong, but he argues more against divorce because people needed to be told that it was wrong--most already knew that homosexual acts are wrong. Miller also tries to discredit the Bible by arguing that its punishments in Leviticus are too severe: death for adultery or homosexual activity. Regardless of the penalty, which today might seem harsh, the more important thing is to realize that the people recognized that the acts were wrong. The penalty of death goes to show that the offense is serious, but the penalty itself is nowhere near as important as recognizing that the action is immoral. She argues: “A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.” When, in reality, a TRULY mature view of the Bible considers the context in which it was written and applies its rules to today’s world. Miller goes on to cite a Newsweek Poll, in which 55% of respondents found adultery to be more immoral than homosexual activity. The thing to note here is that BOTH actions are wrong. The poll just asks people to choose which act they think is MORE wrong. Personally, I would trust the advice of an orthodox Catholic moral theologian before the results of a poll of people who read and respond to a magazine that prints articles like this. A little further, Miller comes up with a gem of a quote: “We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future.” This is perhaps the truest line in the whole article. The Bible is not a marriage manual and we can certainly read and find the universal truth that homosexual activity is gravely immoral. Her next line of attack is to suggest that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, but she tries to be coy by listing a text in which David mourns for Jonathan and expresses his love for his brother and then suggesting: “What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.” Perhaps not; it is probably better left discussed. You see, unlike in many modern trends, the biblical words “love” and ‘intercourse” aren’t synonymous. If David was to have claimed to have had homosexual intercourse with Jonathan, he would have used the word “lie” or “know” or a similar idiom. Rather, this love is a true fraternal care for his friend--something which much of our contemporary society is unfamiliar. Miller then quotes Rabbi Arthur Waskow: “We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent.” Let’s be careful to remember that people who have homosexual temptations aren’t being left out. They’re being asked to understand that they have a temptation to offend God and that their temptation might be a heavy cross to bear, but by bearing it instead of succumbing to it, they are honoring God more than some of the most ardent people who don’t have that temptation. What is being left “outside the sacred tent” is homosexual ACTIVITY, which orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and others all understand as immoral activity. One can remind oneself of this idea with the common phrase: “Love the sinner. Hate the sin.” Remember to love the sinner (for we are all sinners) but don’t forget to hate the sin (because we all need to try, by God’s grace, to remove those sins from our lives). Later Miller states: “ Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace.” We need to remember that here Jesus loved the sinners, but He never encouraged them in their sins: “Go, and sin no more.” Hate the sin. Later Miller quotes Brueggmann: “the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness.” Yes, it is bent toward including people, not sins. Love the sinner. Hate the sin. Miller writes about how some denominations have accepted gay “marriage” and how others will perform some sort of blessing, but shy away from the word “marriage.” She suggests that it is because that word is “politically explosive,” when in reality it is because it cannot be a marriage, so they cannot use that title. In fact, Catholics and mainline Protestants recognize that homosexual activity is wrong, so they wouldn’t even have ANY sort of blessing on the “union” because that would be tantamount to encouraging homosexual activity. Then Miller adds: “So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are?” This question is misleading because it implies that the sacrament could be valid in a homosexual relationship, which it cannot. So the answer is that they CANNOT be married in the same, sacramental sense straight people are ("should" is irrelevant); it’s just not possible. She argues that this is a denial of the sacrament to God’s children. She’s right in labeling marriage as a sacrament, but she is, of course, deceiving herself because this sacrament CANNOT exist between two people of the same sex, so it cannot be a denial. Marriage is a sacrament, but sacraments require proper form and matter. This isn’t a denial of the sacrament. It is a denial of the proposition that we are on the level of God and can make the rules regarding what constitutes a sacrament. Only God can reveal what makes a sacrament (He is the center of every sacrament) and He has revealed His sacraments through His Church. Miller quotes Rev. Chloe Breyer: “Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about.” Yet we can quote Jesus in the Gospel of John (14:15): “If you love me, keep my commands.” Marriage is about much more than being with one another in community. It is about two people accepting a calling from God to offer their lives for each other, drawing each other closer to God and eventually to Heaven by the graces God issues through the sacrament. Marriage is also about being open to life, receiving children as a blessing from God and raising them up with faith so that they may also love God and eventually live forever with Him in Heaven. There is much more. Please refer to the Catechism link above or reliable books like the Theology of the Body books by Christopher West. Later Miller adds: “We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this.” Of course we want our children to grow up in stable homes, but what happens in the bedroom has a LOT to do with this. What happens in the bedroom of a heterosexual couple is the CAUSE of the children to be growing up in the first place. A child CANNOT be the fruit of a homosexual couple. Beyond that, even in heterosexual homes, what happens in the bedroom is the fullest physical expression of a husband’s and wife’s love for each other. If this expression is not given from each as an act of love in the design God wishes, it effects the stability of the family. If one person is not willing (especially in the case of rape), it severely weakens their family because this offering of self is not freely given. If one partner is fantasizing about someone else, it weakens the family because it ceases to be an act of love given for the other. If the couple is contracepting, it weakens the family because it is not a full gift of oneself, holding back one’s fertility. Human sexual activity both strengthens a real marriage bond and can generate children. What happens in the bedroom is key to the stability of the family. Lastly, Miller quotes her priest friend James Martin, stating that “in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us.” Well, let’s first clear up the theological blunder: Jesus IS alive today; His resurrection from the dead is a real event. He didn’t die again afterwards; He ascended into Heaven, but is still alive. Yes, of course Jesus would reach out to gays and lesbians--just like He reached out to tax collectors and other sinners (treating them with the dignity they are due as human beings) and telling them to “go and sin no more.” Trying to set the record straight, - Casey For more commentary see the following articles: Rorschach exegesis: the bible as gay manifesto Gay Marriage in the Bible? November 23 Pun of the DayConsidering the situation, this joke has probably been made before, but I thought it was pretty good at the time. Last night a friend of mine was mentioning how one time a seagull flew in front of a Randy Johnson pitch during a Major League Baseball game and the pitch basically made the bird explode. I questioned: "what does the ump call in that situation?" And then it hit me and I exclaimed: "Fowl Ball!" We went on to discuss how "strike," "pop fly," and a couple other terms would have also been appropriate. October 12 Update Fall 08Hey everyone, We're mid-way through the semester down here at Ave Maria University and things are going pretty well. It's a very intense course here. They require 64 credits for a Masters (16 per semester) and they kind of pride themselves on not letting students slip through the cracks. The first semester is like a boot camp for Catholic Theology--needless to say, the classes keep me busy, but I really enjoy them and know the work will pay off. This upcoming week is mid-term week. I only have one mid-term exam, but I also have two other big projects on which I'm working. Any prayers for my productivity would be greatly appreciated. I also work for the university. I try to get in 20 hours per week as a graphic designer/photographer. See my most recent project (a 360º panoramic of the main part of the campus) below. The environment here is great. Everyone is very friendly and I've made a lot of friends. Mass is very accessible; I'm able to go every day; I usually get to evening prayer and I make it to morning prayer a few times per week too. I played in the intramural sand volleyball league and our team won the championship on Wednesday. I've also been among a group of guys who go help the girls' basketball team--we scrimmage them for a little while on Wednesdays and Saturdays (combining their small roster--some of whom are also on the soccer team--and injuries they don't have enough players to scrimmage against themselves, so they bring us in for strong competition). The weather is a definite adjustment from Michigan (average 90º highs every day, high humidity, rains almost every night, tons of bugs), but I've gotten pretty used to it. A lot of people stay inside as much as possible, but I've been trying to get outside whenever I can. All in all, things are going well. God has definitely blessed me to be able to be learning here and I look forward for what is to come. I hope all is well with all of you. God bless you, - Casey P.S. For those of you who wish to know, I will be home December 13th through January 10th. September 16 Our Lady of SorrowsYesterday (Sep. 15) we celebrated the Memorial of Our Lady of Sorrows. As I was reflecting on it last night, I realized that OLS occurs on the octave of ("eighth day" or seven days after) the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Mary's birthday, celebrated Sep. 8), which is 9 months (to the day) after the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (when she was conceived--without the stain of original sin--in St. Ann's womb, celebrated Dec. 8). I recalled that another Marian octave is the span between the Solemnity of Assumption of Mary (Aug. 15) and the Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth (Aug. 22). We can see that the action of God assuming Mary into Heaven is culminated by Him crowning her as the Queen Mother of all Creation. As I thought about how that octave contains a culmination from one celebration to the other and I applied it to the Nativity of Mary and OLS, I began to consider that the Church might be suggesting that the culmination of Mary's life was her union in the suffering of her son. Since this is also linked to her Immaculate Conception, one can posit that the pinnacle of Mary's entire earthly existence was suffering at the foot of the cross--of course this implies the other major events in her earthly life needed to happen first: accepting the news at the Annunciation, carrying the Son of God in her womb for 9 months, miraculously giving birth to Jesus, etc. As Mary wept at the foot of her Son, who was dying on cross, Simeon's predicted "sword" of agony was piercing her heart. Our Lord, at some point--presumably near the end of His 3 hours on the cross--looked at His mother and said: "Woman, behold, your son!" and to St. John he said: "Behold, your mother!" In this act Mary's earthly care was given over to Jesus' beloved Apostle, John--which is an indication that Jesus had no siblings, otherwise Mary would have automatically been cared for by the next of kin. Not only was she given to be John's mother, but our mother as well. She is Our Lady and we honor her under the title of Our Lady of Sorrows for the pain she endured while staying with Jesus through the point of His death. Mater Dolorosa, caussa de gaudiae, ora pro nobis! God bless you, - Casey September 08 Lectors & GenuflectionI was working through a liturgical question and I think I just figured out the answer and thought you guys might have some good comments. At my parish, as the reader approaches to proclaim the readings, he/she genuflects in the approach. At all other parishes I have been, the person just bows--and this is how I was taught. Reading through the GIRM (particularly #274), I found this paragraph to be the crux of the matter: If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself. Since the reading is during the Mass, I thought the lector wouldn't genuflect. It turns out (as far as I have been able to figure) that I was right. The lector wouldn't genuflect. Why not? Well, if we look at the Duties of the Lector (#195), it states: Upon reaching the altar, the lector makes a profound bow with the others. If he is carrying the Book of the Gospels, he approaches the altar and places the Book of the Gospels upon it. Then the lector takes his own place in the sanctuary with the other ministers. The lector should already be in the sanctuary! Therefore he wouldn't be genuflecting. But this is where I started reading a little behind the lines (and if I'm wrong, I recant this): At my parish, we have no instituted lectors. In fact, I would guess that at 99% of the parishes of people who read this don't have instituted lectors--a position that only a male can fill and must be instituted by a bishop (usually this is only given to men preparing for the diaconate, but it's possible to institute any able-voiced layman--as long as the bishop approves). Therefore, they rely on deputed lay readers to fill in. (See GIRM #101): In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture. They should be truly suited to perform this function and should receive careful preparation, so that the faithful by listening to the readings from the sacred texts may develop in their hearts a warm and living love for Sacred Scripture. Since the reader isn't a lector he/she sits in the Nave. Therefore, he/she would genuflect as he/she approaches the altar. And since #274 seems to imply that the rest of the GIRM doesn't assume that the tabernacle (w/Jesus) is present in the sanctuary, I'm guessing the bow in #195 should be changed to a genuflect here too (which our lectors/readers do). I would like it if the CDW would write the GIRM as though Jesus is in the tabernacle and it is in the sanctuary and that the normal Mass has a congregation (like most of the churches of which I am aware) and then write the exceptions as exceptions. It would certainly clear up a lot of difficult to understand parts--and perhaps curb some liturgical anomalies. Hoping not to have to write a recant, - Casey September 07 Of Comunnion & BirdsAt Mass the other day, after I had received Our Lord in Holy Communion, I was trying to reflect on Jesus inside of me (trying, for I am easily distracted). I looked up to admire how Jesus had brought everyone to that Mass and how all of those people had responded to His call and were so piously receiving Him. As I was reveling in the reverent receptions, a friend of mine approached Communion in a manner that caused me to reflect. Most of the people at my parish receive Jesus on their tongues while kneeling at the optional rail. This friend was doing the same, but as she received Jesus she tilted her head back and opened her mouth in such a fashion that it reminded me of a baby bird receiving food from her mother’s mouth. That got me thinking about how analogous the bird imagery is... Holy Mother Church was providing spiritual nourishment for her children. The priest, like a mother bird, first received the food and then descended from the Sanctuary to provide that sustenance for those in his care. They, in turn, eagerly approached the kneeler like hatchlings pushing themselves to the edge of the nest. With each reception of Holy Communion, they grow stronger. Particularly since most are college students, they are like the little fledgling birds--getting their strength now to go fly out into the world and sing the beautiful song of hope and of the greatness of our God. This aviary imagery then brought to mind how the angels are often portrayed as having wings and I had to wonder if there was any connection. Even amid my distractions, God’s inspiration was powerful enough to keep my attention. Preparing for flight, - Casey P.S. A particular note of congratulations goes out to my brother, Levi, who is now engaged! September 04 The Coolest Piece of Mail I've Perhaps Ever ReceivedI went to check my mailbox today, knowing that I would have a piece of mail from the school. What I didn't expect was the other envelope with my name on it. Joshua Belanger, a devout young boy from a great Catholic family (who I sponsored for his Confirmation) wrote me a letter. Just before I moved to college, his family moved to Oklahoma, where his dad had gotten a new job, so we don't know how much we will get to see of each other now. It was so cool that it brought tears to my eyes--and I couldn't help but share it. He wrote: Hi Casey, How you doing in college? I liked your pictures. We got a trampoline and put it together with help from Dad. We wish you could jump with us. This is a picture of you and me riding horses. [See the picture below.] God Bless! Love, Joshua August 27 The Uniqueness of Judeo-ChristianityNotes from Dr. William Riordan’s Class Triune God: Mirchea Eliade made a great contribution to the study of the history of the world’s religions--see his work “Cosmos & History”. He came to the conclusion that all of the world’s religions had a number of elements in common. Particularly, he noted that they were all characterized by a belief in a cyclical universe (i.e. the Greeks believed that every 36,000 years every exact event repeated itself)--the universe, therefore, has neither a beginning nor an end, just constant repetition. The basis for thought of a cyclical universe can be found in the cycles of years, seasons, day/night, menstruation, movement of stars/planets, etc. The religions also believed in some form of transmigration of souls--that the body is just a vessel for the soul until its next body. This is an easy conclusion to make when one considers the universe cyclical. Eliade found these beliefs to be ubiquitous among all religions of the world--except for Judeo-Christianity. As a result of man's Fall, our intellects are darkened and our wills weakened. In this lesser state, man cannot distinguish the truths of the universe as easily as before. Man still searches for God, but without God’s direction, man is only looking in shadows and images and his misunderstandings of reality is are common--different in specifics for each culture, but common in larger, general concepts. With God’s guidance, however, the chosen people were given guidance to see the truth and be beacons among the men who struggle for understanding. As a sign of this, God changed Abram’s name (father of people) to Abraham (father of peoples). We who likely do not have Jewish ancestry are the verification of God’s promise to Abraham. We can see it in John’s vision of Heaven--people of every race, color, people and tongue gathered around the Lamb. Christ also told his apostles to baptize all nations. With God’s guidance, we can see that the universe is not cyclical--everything happens only once--each event is unique. In this, we can now believe in history. This view gets beyond a self-enclosed/self-sufficient universe. There is something outside/beyond the universe--something that brings the universe into being, unaffected by that universe. August 20 Yet Another Sign That I'm Supposed to be HereAs if there haven't already been a million signs that I'm supposed to be here, I received another one yesterday. I live in Xavier Hall (as in St. Francis Xavier). And the RAs at my dorm decided to go with an X-Men theme this year and label the doors as though we were attending Xavier's School for gifted Youngsters (the school for the X-Men). I've been a fan of the X-Men since I was a kid and seeing this sign on the door, I couldn't help but get all geeked up (on multiple levels). If anyone is curious about the weather, Tropical Storm Fay passed through Monday night and Tuesday morning. There were high winds and a fair amount of rain, but the worst damage on campus was the tipping of a number of freshly planted trees. Today was sunny and 80s but they're calling for storms until the weekend. After work today, I went to dinner at the cafeteria and was inviting people to go play volleyball at the beach court when I came across the girls volleyball team and invited them to come along. They had to go to class, but they invited me to bring people to their indoor volleyball practice tonight to scrimmage, so after a couple hours of beach 5 of the 9 beach players went to go scrimmage the girls. We played for an hour or so there too. It was a great night! We played pretty well, winning 2 of the 3 games and since we were all guys, the coach has suggested that we might get a guys club team started next semester. Time allowing, that would be great! Orientation was yesterday and today. We had special presentations by Fr. Thomas Weinandy OFM, Cap. I took some notes. If I get enough extra time tomorrow, I'll try to post some of it. Glad to be an X-Man, - Casey |
|
||||||||||
|
|
