Give Tongue

You're Not the Boss of Me

2011-11-02T17:04:00.002+01:00

It's interesting to note that, regarding the note on financial reform released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is being met in such a way.

When encountering a document there are three distinct questions you ask:
1. What does it say?
2. What does it mean?
3. Is it true?

As a Catholic, there is the added consideration of whether or not the teaching promulgated through the text (if any) is binding, so it is legitimate to ask about its magisterial authority.

But the default is to welcome promulgations of the Holy Mother Church and prayerfully consider them rather than to instinctively or automatically regard them with suspicion.

In any case, the order of questions that I'm seeing, regarding this document, is:
1. How magisterial is it? MUST I believe what it teaches?
2. ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!?!?!

The upshot is (and this analogy was drawn by a relative of mine):
The council is obviously poop-headed. Old men in the Vatican don't know anything about economics. They can't tell me what to do with my money. I don't have to listen to them. Nyah.

Yes, but what are they saying, what do they mean, and - most importantly - is it true?

E-Bike

2011-09-08T00:13:00.002+02:00

I recently bought an electric bike. I promptly drove it into some bushes. Take that, bushes!

It's really increased my mobility. And, when I need a quick ego boost, it's fun to glide past people going uphill, in funny spandex shorts, on normal bikes. It doesn't even leave me sweating. Ha Ha Ha!

But it got sick. It stopped going with its normal vigor.

I brought it back to the e-bike place and tried to explain the problem in very technical terms.

Mechanic: So, what's the problem?
Me: Well, it goes funny...and when I hit the accelerator...throttle...it's just weird.
Mechanic: It... goes funny. Oooook, can I have the keys and I'll try it out?
Me: *hands over keys*
Mechanic: *starts it up and accelerates* OH! THAT'S what you mean, right there!
Me: YES!

The initial diagnosis is that there are gears slipping somewhere in the contraption. It will be fixed ASAP. Then I will once again terrorize the streets of Berkeley on my e-bike. Bushes better be fearin'.

Er. Yes.

2011-09-06T22:14:00.003+02:00

When you pick up a new medication (as opposed to a refill), you are told to consult with a pharmacist on its possible side-effects and manner of taking it. Today, I picked up t'eh stronger meds because t'eh weaker meds weren't working as they ought.

This happened during my consult and made me happy:
Pharmacist (somewhat ditzy young woman), listing off side-effects: SO! You can get either constipation OR diarrhea!...Hopefully, you'll get both and they'll cancel each other out! ^__^

The Story of the Cat-Giraffe

2011-09-01T01:11:00.003+02:00

(The cat-giraffe as drawn by my sister.)

Once Upon A Time

There was a cat called Charles who got his head stuck half-way out a window. He tried to get out of the window by pushing it open - but the window was set fast. He tried to get out by pulling. He pulled and he pulled until at last his head came out with a "pop."

Then he looked down and realized - oh no - that his neck had been stretched! He chalked it up to fate and ran off to play with the other cats.

But the other cats looked at him and said "You aren't a cat! You're a giraffe!"

So he went to the zoo and tried to play with the giraffes.

But the giraffes said "You're not a giraffe! You're a cat!"

Charles was so sad.

Just then some astronauts came by and said "You would be a perfect specimen to put into our test rocket!"

So the astronauts put Charles in their test rocket and sent it off to Mars. When the rocket landed, Charles tumbled out and looked around the strange landscape.

Why! There were HUNDREDS of cat-giraffes who ran up to Charles and said "Heeeeeey. You're just like us! Do you want to play?" Charles DID want to play.

And Charles was very happy.

The End.

Pawn to Berkeley

2011-06-24T20:28:00.002+02:00

I'm heading back to my native land.

This means I will take a plane.

I hate flying. Hate. Hate. Hate. By day, I am a rational human being. By plane, I am a gibbering mass of unintelligibility that vaguely resembles something that might have once had a semblance of a rational character. Not a semblance! But a semblance of a semblance. It's that bad. I've stuffed my brain full of facts on the safety of aviation but it doesn't help. I cry inside for the duration of the flight. When it gets really bad, I hide in the airplane bathroom: being in the enclosed space helps me to imagine that I'm actually *on a train*. Choo choo! ... Aren't drugs supposed to help with this?

WELL, once I get back to Berkeley, I will be taking a course in French. I've had some French classes before, but not enough to really cement the language in my consciousness. I emailed a local French institute with the details of my French studies and they responded saying they thought that the intermediate level would be suitable - and they attached the courses and dates - but that they would (essentially) like to conduct a placement test via phone. So I phoned. I conversed in mangled French for about 5 minutes and then this happened:

Teacher: Hm...I think the Wednesday class would suit you best.
Me: Oh...that class...doesn't appear to be in the intermediate section. (Thinking she's bumping me down to the beginner level.)
Teacher: No. It's in the advanced...you converse so readily.
Me: THAT'S ADVANCED?!?
Teacher: ...I didn't want to tell you. *laughing*

Good gracious, are our language skills so bad or...am I just that good? I tend to think our language skills are just that bad and now, in addition to grade inflation, we have level inflation as well. 'cause, honey, I ain't that good.

2011-05-04T09:24:00.005+02:00

This quote popped into my head, as I was attending the blognic:

This is to say that instead of being grouped and assembled, as in the Middle Ages, in a homogeneous and integrally Christian body of civilization, limited however to a privileged portion of the inhabited earth, it seems that the unity of Christian culture must now extend over the whole surface of the globe, but, in return, represent only the order and living network of Christian temporal institutions and Christian centers of intellectual and spiritual life spread throughout the world in the great supra-cultural unity of the Church. Instead of a mighty fortress raised up amidst the lands, we should rather think of the army of stars distributed in the sky. Such a unity is not any less real, but it is diffuse instead of being concentrated.
-Maritain

I had the great pleasure, yesterday, of meeting Hilary, Seraphic, one of the authors From the Pews, a nice FSSP seminarian from Belgium who knows some friends of mine in...Nebraska ("who doesn't know them!?" he exclaimed)...and other lovely people.

Of course, I was extremely jet-lagged, having just flown in from California, so I was alternately abrupt (aieee!) or dozing over my one-beer-a-week (which the doctor said I could have, provided that my liver functions continue to be unaffected by all the drugs I'm on).

From the blognic, I gathered that there is a concern tickling the online community: does the blogosphere cheapen (so to speak) what constitutes Real Relations between people? There were gentle and constant reminders to get out and Do Things in Real Life (presumably with Real People). It is certainly not unusual that blogs and other mediums like twitter, facebook, etc., encourage a more superficial approach to communication, particularly given the ease with which one may post anything without adequate reflection, phrasing, or spelling. But, as with graphic novels, each medium conveys information differently. So what do blogs convey? How? To Whom? I am still too jet-lagged to reflect on this subject, but it is matter for reflection.

Brilliant

2011-05-04T09:22:00.001+02:00

Me too, me too!

2011-04-29T17:19:00.003+02:00

What I would like to know is why it is limited to theologians and not open to philosophers?

Theology and philosophy go hand in hand. It is part of the intellectual renewal to ground theologians in the history of philosophy, its methodologies, and metaphysics. Otherwise you run into problems of credibility - not within the eyes of the world, but within the rigors of the field itself.

Philosophy has had a huge impact on the history of the world and our understanding of being - to be ignorant of that history is to deprive yourself of insights and leaves you open to errors that have been repeated time and again. The methodology of logic is indispensable for any being aspiring to the study of higher things. How do you politely say "oh hai!!! ur doing it wrong, Mr. Theologian - middle term must be distributed at least once in t'eh premises." Reason must be sharpened. And finally - metaphysics. How to stress its importance enough? I think I'll just point here.

A Pictoral Explanation of an Earlier Post

2011-04-29T00:27:00.002+02:00

He's My Kind of Pope

2011-04-24T18:11:00.003+02:00

"The world is a product of the Word, of the Logos, as Saint John expresses it, using a key term from the Greek language. “Logos” means “reason”, “sense”, “word”. It is not reason pure and simple, but creative Reason, that speaks and communicates itself. It is Reason that both is and creates sense. The creation account tells us, then, that the world is a product of creative Reason. Hence it tells us that, far from there being an absence of reason and freedom at the origin of all things, the source of everything is creative Reason, love, and freedom. Here we are faced with the ultimate alternative that is at stake in the dispute between faith and unbelief: are irrationality, lack of freedom and pure chance the origin of everything, or are reason, freedom and love at the origin of being? Does the primacy belong to unreason or to reason? This is what everything hinges upon in the final analysis. As believers we answer, with the creation account and with Saint John, that in the beginning is reason. In the beginning is freedom. Hence it is good to be a human person.
...
Hence the world can be saved. Hence we can and must place ourselves on the side of reason, freedom and love – on the side of God who loves us so much that he suffered for us, that from his death there might emerge a new, definitive and healed life.
...
The first day of the week was the third day after Jesus’ death. It was the day when he showed himself to his disciples as the Risen Lord. In truth, this encounter had something unsettling about it. The world had changed. This man who had died was now living with a life that was no longer threatened by any death. A new form of life had been inaugurated, a new dimension of creation. The first day, according to the Genesis account, is the day on which creation begins. Now it was the day of creation in a new way, it had become the day of the new creation. We celebrate the first day. And in so doing we celebrate God the Creator and his creation. Yes, we believe in God, the Creator of heaven and earth. And we celebrate the God who was made man, who suffered, died, was buried and rose again. We celebrate the definitive victory of the Creator and of his creation. We celebrate this day as the origin and the goal of our existence. We celebrate it because now, thanks to the risen Lord, it is definitively established that reason is stronger than unreason, truth stronger than lies, love stronger than death. We celebrate the first day because we know that the black line drawn across creation does not last for ever. We celebrate it because we know that those words from the end of the creation account have now been definitively fulfilled: “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen 1:31). Amen."

-Pope Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil Homily 2011

Clarity - it's what's for breakfast.

2011-04-23T21:03:00.005+02:00

First off - Happy Easter to All! Buona pasqua! Christ is Risen! Glorify Him!

I have friends across the globe and it's beautiful to observe the Alleluias sound in Rome, touch the East Coast, and roll inexorably onwards towards the Bay Area. I can't wait until the Vigil this evening when we add our voices to the celebrations of the Universal Church.
----------------------------
Secondly...Clarity - it's what's for breakfast.

Subserve: sub - to be under | servire - to serve = "serving or acting in a subordinate capacity."
Obedient: oboedire - to obey = "complying with authority"
(Ref: Dictionary.com)

There is this one phrase that will, in 3 seconds, start a fire-storm: "women should be subservient unto men."

Oh no you did'uhnt.

Since Ancient Greek Times, there has been some equivocation between terms regarding people in subservient positions. I.e. slaves. Aristotle proposes, for our intellection, that there are two broad categories into which people fall. People incapable of self-direction towards contemplation - and ordering action to that end - are slaves by nature. Slaves by convention are those people who have the above capability but, through circumstances, have somehow been prevented from exercising that capacity. There more to being free for Aristotle - like being a Greek citizen (male, 35+ years old) - but I'm setting that aside.

Instead, I want to expand on the concepts of nature and convention. Say that you are a free citizen. In fact, I hope you are a free citizen. If you're a line-cook, I'd say you are subordinate to your boss/owner and must comply with legitimate orders. However, the boss is not able to exercise authority in those areas beyond his level of expertise: i.e. the plebeian owner cannot tell the line-cook how to chop veggies. There is a proportional relation between the boss and the cook.

Being under (in both line of command and capacity) a legitimate authority is not a bad thing. Human beings are marvelously diverse and our capacities are not uniform. Some need more direction than others. Bertie Wooster needed his Jeeves. But when a person tries to usurp an authority to which they are not entitled then the entire operation goes janky because the proper relation is disturbed. There are many benign reasons for such errors: a person might overstep their authority because they mistake particular circumstances. It happens. This is quite forgivable, though unfortunate.

However, we are mostly speaking so far of conventional things. The claim that women should be subservient to men is something that goes deeper than convention and is analogous to the claim that men should give right worship to God: it's something that goes down to our very being and nature. Incidentally, my mind may be playing tricks on me...but...in the Gospels I always seem to remember Christ as being obedient rather than subservient to the Father, which makes sense since Christ is, with the Father and Holy Spirit, worshiped and glorified. I think that might help shed a little light on the matter. Christ came to make us Sons of God, to join in His heritage. I am not claiming that we may ever be equal in any capacity to God. But consider the language. God does not want us to be slaves but sons.

The problem that I have with subservience is when it is understood as being rooted in inferiority of nature. That is, women, by nature, would be akin to slaves: incapable of self-direction. This pernicious idea often masquerades as something unobjectionable. In the natural order, men are so constituted that they are particularly fitted for the task of directing a family though the woman is co-equal with the man in terms of her nature. Consider partner-dancing. You have a leader and you have a follower. The unity of movement is accomplished only when the man and woman come together voluntarily to create harmony and beauty and the woman voluntarily hands over control to the man. The follower is no less than the man - her role is simply different. She *could* direct herself, should she so chose and freestyle dance like none other.

The idea of inferiority of nature happens when this role of being-directed is understood with a slave-mentality. That is, that women, by nature, do not have a certain role which it is particularly fitting that they take within certain structures/relations - but that women, by nature, lack something that only men - by nature - can have. This causes women to be subservient/inferior and gives men a privileged status of master-like authority de facto.

Ew.

The equivocation is dangerous and simply appalling. That is why I have a problem with anyone who says that women should be subservient to men. We are plagued in our times by fuzzy and hasty reasoning, by sayings, by soundbytes. It is easier to stick with a phrase, chanting it like a mantra, enshrining it in the saying of a holy authority or text, than to actually untangle all the meanings and distinctions or to scrutinize the phrase within the context of the universal church and submit to her opinion.

I also suspect that many people don't know what they really mean when they say women should be subservient to men and that is why they resort to examples of subservience when pushed for clarification. It's actually rather Socratic. What do you mean by subservience? Well, the woman should ask her husband for permission before doing such and such a thing, a woman should not interject herself into rational arguments, the woman should know her place is to take care of the kids, the woman should not get a job or an education because that makes her uppity, etc.

Let's recast this: if you had a daughter, wouldn't you want her to plunge deeper and deeper into the knowledge and love of God? Isn't God present in all aspects of being? Including the sciences? What if your daughter has a passion for science and wants to be a nano-technologist? What earthly reason would you have to stand in her way? Don't you love her?

--------------------
Thirdly...

My sisters tell me that I usually have a huge grin on my face when sleeping and that it's rather creeeepy. I can't think why...

I'm Reading a Book

2011-04-15T02:36:00.001+02:00

Exactly! He must be a scholar.

In All Things, Charity

2011-04-13T16:59:00.010+02:00

Everyone has an opinion. Should we drink raw milk? Vaccinate children? Avoid gluten? Take zinc during colds? Etc. When it comes to autoimmune disorders, everyone has an opinion, too, on what your diet should be like and what yoga you should be doing - and that, really, you aren't that sick and shouldn't be on so many drugs.

No, I shouldn't be on so many drugs. However, my body is incapable of producing enough cortisone on its own to fight with this:

No, I'm not fat. That, my friends, is the ugly beast called inflammation. Using natural remedies may be effective if you've got a mild case of something: a cold, a flu, an earache. But sometimes you just gotta have drugs and you'd be rather wardsback to refuse drugs for something like - say - strep throat or pneumonia. And yet, there seems to be this myth that if you eat only organic foods and pat your head as you rub your tummy then you will avoid - or cure - all manner of illness...and have great bowel movements to boot!

This is a false belief in both the spiritual and the material realm.

I'm not going to make some comparison between how you can say your prayers every day, go to Mass, but sometimes need that extra spiritual ooomph that comes from outside of yourself and which is totally beyond your reach because it is grace (wholly unmerited, etc.). But I will say: we're not autonomous beings in a vacuum, but beings living in community with others, enmeshed in environments, histories (personal and genetic), and relationships. It is tempting to think that, given some simple formula, we can be independent, in control, and wholly self-directed.

But it's an illusion and impoverishes our being if we use it as a principle of action. We were created for love and I think you have to open yourself to the possibility of being affected if you are to love, at least, in this world. If you *aren't* affected when your child dies in a terrible accident then I'd say your being is defective. God cannot be affected in this way (in His nature as God) because being affected is an accident of passion and God is simple (QED) - nevertheless, He did make Himself vulnerable as man so that we could draw closer to Him.

We need others to be ourselves as human beings. Simple formulas are never sufficient in themselves and if we use them as placebos to escape engaging reality - weellll, then, there's a problem. Closing yourself off to the reality of frailty and need does not make you a stronger person: it closes you off to the possibility of getting what you need - and of giving to others what they need. You also cannot ask for what you need because you don't perceive yourself as lacking anything.

In the corporeal realm (and, by the by, a lightbulb just went off in my head regarding the difference between corporeality and materiality - they're totally different, though related terms), I often have to ask for what I need because of how weak I've become. The generous response to all my pleas for aid has been stunning...and I'm sure that my family and friends are being quite helped out this Lent since I'm here, giving them the opportunity to exercise practical charity! Yet it goes both ways. If I can ask and receive I can also appreciate what I might not have seen before and give thanks. A passage from the Gospel of Luke which has always stuck in my heart (I'm not sure of how to put that another way) is that of the 10 lepers who were healed. God's generosity and work in others flows outwards, through others, and surrounds me.

If all this is true in the corporeal realm, why not, to some extent, in the spiritual as well?

Er. So. In summary! In some cases, yes, natural remedies work, but sometimes, we need drugs. And grace.

Rome Blognic

2011-04-12T16:45:00.006+02:00

Oh goodness! I will be in Rome for this event. How exciting, ne? And the Scholar's Lounge is a nice place to hold this event. The bartenders didn't even get annoyed at me when I was dancing with a young man who'd semi-inadvertently been in his cups a bit, bumping into patrons, and being a nuisance - despite the sign up on the wall that clearly stated that no dancing is permitted in the pub.

Which goes to show:

1. There is space! and,
2. The bartenders are nice!

Edit: if you're a blogger or an interested party AND in Rome on May 3rd, you should sign up on FACEBOOK for this event!

This is the list of confirmed attendee bloggers:
Michael Voris
Salt n' Light TV's Rome correspondent
Rorate Caeli
New Liturgical Movement
Orbis Catholicus
Fr. Zuhlsdorf
Seraphic Singles
Discover Happiness
Ars Orandi

Web Comics

2011-03-30T23:03:00.005+02:00

Every now and again, I evaluate the webcomics/manga floating about the land and see what's worthwhile. As a kiddie, I gobbled up Tintin, Asterix and Obelix, Nausicaa, the Far Side, and Garfield. Then I matured and read many morbid Bronte books because they seemed safe. Mmm! Well, except for Garfield. Not all children develop taste right away. But, now, there is Garfield minus Garfield, so partial redemption is possible.

Comics are a powerful medium. When the plot couples impeccably with the image it's so...beautiful! Enthralling! Delightful! But comics will never achieve the depth of a Dostoevsky novel. I'd contend that the medium doesn't lend itself too well to thoughtful reading or reflection. The space to write is contracted, making the writing/narrative produced somewhat simplistic and absorbable. Or maybe it's just my modus operandi that gives me that idea - I tend to inhale/snort webcomics. Om nom nom. (Tangentially, I am quite proud of the fact that I've taught the wee Italian boy I watch, in Rome, to say "OM NOM NOM" when he is eating.)

More action is required of comics than of books, faster timelines, more comedy. Which is not to say that complex moral questions and dilemmas cannot be conveyed, or meaningful dialogues. These questions, dilemmas, and dialogues can be highly compelling as there is an aesthetic "oomph" and an intellectual component that appeal to our human nature. However, most comics will opt not to delve deeply into complex issues and focus on adventure, action, comedy, etc.

Nevertheless, comics aren't prose novels and don't attempt to pretend to try to be such - they're something else, entirely: a blend of image and word. In their own right, they stand as a remarkable medium in which to convey a story.

Here are some webcomics/manga (loosely speaking) that I love. They're not particularly deep, for the above reasons, but they're awesome:

- Lackadaisy Cats
- Hyperbole and a Half
- One Piece (DON'T base your judgment of One Piece off the English anime dub)
- Star Drop
- Buttercup Festival, series 1 (I think it's funny.)
- Ellie Connelly
- Beaver and Steve (on hiatus, but if you haven't read it, it's a good'un)

And these are some rules I have:
1. No magic princess plotlines in which the princess - the only one able to save the kingdom - is spirited off to another world and learns of her heritage when called upon to save the land at a conveniently adolescent age when she also has T'EH HIGHSCHOOL PRESSURES to deal with. ZOMG!

2. No comic which has a "Hmm... Your clothes are inadequate - let's buy you new ones!" story arc. It's pointless and doesn't endear me to the character. It makes me want to punch the character.

3. Gorgeous art + no compelling plot = bad comic. It does take practice to become a good writer - but if you ain't got the spark, you ain't got the spark. On the other hand, good plot + bad art = good comic. Content drives form!

4. Depressing comics without a note of hope are on my poo-list. I really don't care if a comic is principally sad. But when it presents a world in which there is - essentially - no hope of ANY kind of redemption (personal or eternal), it's just wrong. I'm not talking about characters in a comic who don't believe in redemption. Most great books are built on the tension a character feels towards that possibility (the Power and the Glory, anyone?).

5. Excessively violent comics are out. Depending on the type of comic and the type of violence, this is more or less palatable to me. Depicting violence for the sake of violence because you think blood and guts are pretty is disturbing. The fascination with dark things taints a lot of comics, subtly influencing our aesthetics and damaging our perception of the world.

6. Full-out frontal noodity/rampant sexuality are also right out. A number of comics resort to these shock-tactics in order to get attention. This is a mark of a poor writer.

The Virtual Choir

2011-03-24T23:11:00.002+01:00

Eric Whitacre is a bit of a brilliant composer - and he had the very neat idea of creating a virtual choir: interested parties submit videos of themselves singing one of the alto/soprano/tenor/base lines which are then spliced together. The result? Pure awesome.

In Whitacre's words (not to be confused with WHITAKER'S words):

Does God Will Evil?

2011-03-24T16:07:00.007+01:00

This is something I wrote back in the Fall (slightly modified), on Question 19, Article 9 of the Prima Pars. Does God will evil? Well, no. But He does will to permit evil. Therein lies the philosophical explanation as to why a completely good will - which is always fulfilled - can exist while evil exists. Even so, Aquinas' explanation in the Summa is not entirely satisfactory. There's something slightly off about how quickly he deals with the active and permissive will of God. But, then, our understanding of God is limited by our human way of thinking which can never adequately capture God's reality and being (don't go down the path of the Divine Names!).

Article 9: Does God Will Evil?
Since we have established that God’s will is always fulfilled, how can one reconcile evil with the will of God? Aquinas says that the good and the desirable are identical, whereas evil is the opposite. Evil, as such, can never be directly desired since it is the opposite of what is desirable. But evil may be desired indirectly, because “evil has a good attached to it, but this goes with being deprived of another good.”[1] God wills His own goodness above all, but He wills some particular goods more than others. Moral evil “He wills in no way.”[2] He does, however, will in some way physical evil or suffering for the sake of some good. That is, He wills the good of the criminal and will allow the criminal to undergo punishment through the loss of a good (a loss of liberty, etc.), for the sake of the “good attached.” Hence, God cannot be said to will physical evils or suffering in themselves, and moral evils “in no way.” The objections are three in number and worth addressing individually. The objections are, firstly, that God wills for every good to be realized, and that it is good that not only good things exist because from evils, good can follow. But the good that results from evil does not come about directly – the goodness that follows is incidental. Hence, it is not good that evil should exist. The second objector states that evil contrasts with good and contributes to the perfection of the universe. As God wills the perfection of the universe, He wills evil. Again, Aquinas points out that any good that follows from evil is not direct. Hence, it is not good that evil should exist in the universe. The last objector says that since God cannot will contradictories (x and not-x), and His will is always fulfilled, it follows that God does will evil. Aquinas responds here that “’to will evils to come into being’ and ‘to will evils not to come into being’ are not…opposed” as contradictory statements. That is, they both affirm something (to will to do x, and to will to do y) and are not contradictory. Aquinas says that God “neither wills evils to be nor wills evils not to be; he wills to allow them to happen”[3] (that is, God wills to do z). Here, the active and the permissive will of God are distinguished. God actively wills the good and permits evil to happen.

[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, ed. T. Gilby, trans. Blackfriars vol. 5 (Great Britain: Eyre and Spottiswoode Limited, 1967), 41.

[2] Ibid., 41.

[3] Ibid., 43.

On Suffering

2011-03-21T19:04:00.010+01:00

"Deirdre, you have been so quiet, recently. Is everything ok?" "Oh, yes, I'm just a bit tired."

That's how it all started, that general feeling of malaise. It came to a head with a DRAMATIC trip to the emergency room and lots of drugs. And then more drugs. And then! More drugs. In short, I have an medical condition which has been filling my life with some rather acute suffering these past weeks. Thankfully, the drugs help! As does the knowledge that this condition (an autoimmune disorder called MCTD - nothing embarrassing), while annoying, is hardly fatal and can certainly be controlled.

If anecdotes are to be believed, the first thought which many people have when they realize they've been picked for some special suffering is "why me?" Mine was more: "Aw. Damn."

If you contemplate suffering, it really is a mysterious thing and, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God: why does the good man suffer? From Job to the Church Fathers to modern saints we see the repeated cry and attempts to answer that cry: why is there suffering? In Christ we can see that not only does the good man suffer but God, in the person of Christ, suffers for the redemption of man. It is comforting to know that suffering can have purpose and meaning, even if it's difficult to divine what those are in the particulars, and that no more is being asked of us that wasn't asked of One who truly deserved no suffering whatsoever. Why? Original sin! Why me? Who knows! I was a rather naughty child. Maybe breaking into that water main and then blaming it on my little brother, standing, adoringly beside me - happy that I was 'playing' with him - might not have been the *most* virtuous act? Maybe this is cutting some time off of purgatory.

Many saints suffered severely from various maladies. Now, I can understand, at least a bit, why suffering connects so strongly with sanctity. The plain fact is that it's very difficult to actively sin when you're really suffering. It takes energy that's not present. Why be angry when you can barely even dress yourself in the morning? (Put that way, it doesn't sound very convincing - but YOU try juggling chronic fatigue, pain, limited mobility, and ACTIVE ANGER. You'll soon find that you're exhausting yourself to no end.) Oh, you can certainly sin - despair, be angry with God, become bitter, etc. Many people do sin in this way.

Suffering is a scary thing. Particularly since medicine is, in part, a sort of inexact science and tantamount to magic to the uninitiated (me!). Tests! Which show up negative...or positive...but don't really say anything about anything! So more tests! What does it all mean? Who knows! Frustrating? A bit. Scary? Sure. Particularly when you're in an Italian emergency room with a vocabulary more philosophical than medical and a complete inability to communicate effectively with the doctor.

It is easier to merely sit back and be thankful for all the blessings that God has given me: a healthy, loving, and supportive family, the ability to return to the States and get adequate treatment (yes, I'm back in the Bay Area - the Italian medical system was too much for me to handle on my own), food, shelter, warmth. How many people are suffering alone, in pain and fear? God has blessed me and I'd be kind of a fool if I didn't see that.

Yes, it's difficult. I won't say that I didn't sit on the couch for two days eating chocolate and sniffling to myself as I apologized to my housemates for being so...emotional, as I faced t'eh future. "Deirdre. Your emotional is just about every woman's Stoic," said my housemate. That was clever and made me feel better, too.

The things I find most difficult are: 1. No b33r. Alcohol and medications don't mix. It will be a perpetual Lent for me until - if ever - I get off of the medications. 2. The anguish that other people feel over my condition. That really is the most difficult thing to bear. What can you do? In the Gospels, there were many ill who placed themselves before the Lord. And, He was moved by their faith. But, in anguish, many parents and siblings and loved ones would drag the one who suffered - or was dead - before the Lord and demand His compassion, demand His attention, demand that He do something. And Christ was moved to tears. Thus we see the power of intercession.

So! Pray for my healing - particularly via the intercession of Pope John Paul the Great. He loved lay-students, lived in Rome, and his beatification is coming up. He might be feeling generous right now!

And, on a parting note, I think no one should forget this classic:

Everyone wants a bit of philosophy

2011-03-12T20:16:00.002+01:00

"Pft, philosophy." said a seminarian.
"Hey!" I screamed "the Pope said in Fides et Ratio that people who don't like philosophy should be taken out and shot!"
"That's...really what the Pope said..."
"It's the gist of it."

Actually, what he (our former Pope) said in §61 was "I cannot fail to note with surprise and displeasure that this lack of interest in the study of philosophy is shared by not a few theologians."

And it's true. Many seminarians - planning on being theologians - are made to go through a couple of years of philosophy before they enter into the contemplation of the highest things...well, the highest Being. Philosophy, to many seminarians, is like a period of purgatory verging on hell. They have a lamentable intellectual acedia when it comes to philosophy. Ontology? Epistemology? Metaphysics? Give me the Trinity! The Blessed Virgin Mary! The Eucharist!

Oh, I can't blame them terribly much. Philosophy has such a reputation. Couple its history of Descartes, Kant, Hume, etc., with its difficult vocabulary, obscurity, and those contemporary philosophers who still try to defend consequentialism, and you can quickly see that philosophy appears rather un-chic. Dr. Kevorkian - now he definitely had a philosophy. Why study something that's so...troublesome?

Recall Boethius' vision of lady philosophy:

While I was silently thinking over these things in myself
and noting mournful complaints by a pen's service
there stood over head visions for me,
a woman of very majestic appearance,
with eyes shining and sharp beyond common human health,
from vivid color and of inexhaustible vigor,
yet so mature in age as almost to be believed of our time,
the height of doubtful determination.

For at one time she held herself to common human measure,
while at another time in height she actually
seemed to strike the heaven of the highest summit;
which when her head was raised higher even penetrated heaven
and was frustrating the observation of the humans looking.

Her clothes with the finest threads were by delicate skill
from the imperishable material of perfection,
which, as I have since learned from her coming out,
she wove herself with her own hands;
just as it usually does smoky pictures,
a kind of fog of neglected antiquity covered their form.

On the lowest border of these a Greek Pi was embroidered,
while on the highest a Theta could be read,
and between both letters could be seen
in the manner of stairs a kind of marked grade,
by which the ascent should be
from the lower to the higher element.

However the hands of some violent ones had torn this dress
and had taken away whatever particulars each could.
At any rate in her right hand were books,
while in the left she was carrying a scepter.

...

"Now then do you think it is the first time
wisdom is among bad morals challenged by dangers?
Did we not among the old too
before the great age of our Plato
often contend in disputes with the thoughtlessness of folly
and by the same superstition his teacher Socrates
earned the victory of an unjust death by my assistance?

"The inheritance of which since successively
the crowd of Epicureans and Stoics and others
each having plundered to the best of their ability
they tried to go on
and me crying out and resisting
they carried off for part of the plunder,
a dress they cut up which I had woven with my own hands
and with rags dragged from it went away
believing I had completely yielded to them.
Since among them were seen some traces of our dress,
the imprudent having supposed them to be familiar with me
some of them were undone by the common multitude's error.
Source.

You can take bits and pieces of philosophy or look at philosophy from one privileged aspect or another, and get a very odd idea about what it is as a whole. But when you understand that what philosophers actually seek - truth and wisdom- is another way of saying they're seeking God according to unaided human reason. Human reason is a powerful, powerful thing. We've developed tools, ways of thinking, that are of immense help when it comes to theology. We've used our human reason to articulate mysteries of the faith and to defend that faith against human errors. Without philosophy, our understanding of truths of the faith would be...less.

Likewise, theology opens up whole new vistas to human reason. Faith is the horizon to which reason leads. Reason can't step over that threshold, so to speak - but God can invite us in/come to us as we are and as we need Him with our human understanding and capacities.

Faith is reasonable. You don't need to be super-reason-man to believe - there are any number of enviously pious saints who had only a rudimentary education. But to dismiss philosophy as a whole because you can't see that it has value and provides the rational underpinnings of many theological things like...the trinity and personhood...is just Not Right. Not everyone is satisfied with a simple statement. We want that statement to cohere with what we've observed of the human world and nature - with experience.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth - in a word, to know himself - so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves. (Fides et ratio, intro)

So, you see, seminarians and theologians, you really do need to stop dissing philosophy.

How the Dominicans were Founded

2011-02-28T07:47:00.003+01:00

Just a couple of helps for understanding the sequence: Dominic traveled a bit with his bishop, Diego, and it was during his travels that he sort of got the idea that sacra doctrina was totally needing more exposure. And so he founded the order of preachers. Coincidence?

NB: it's a little incomplete. I got bored. It'll be redone sometime in...the future. Dun dun duuun.

A Quote to Nom on

2011-02-27T21:40:00.001+01:00

Were theologians to refuse the help of philosophy, they would run the risk of doing philosophy unwittingly and locking themselves within thought-structures poorly adapted to the understanding of faith. Were philosophers, for their part, to shun theology completely, they would be forced to master on their own the contents of Christian faith, as has been the case with some modern philosophers. Either way, the grounding principles of autonomy which every science rightly wants guaranteed would be seriously threatened. Fides et Ratio, §77

There are Real Things

2011-02-25T15:52:00.002+01:00

So... Looks like some bloggers I like have come together on a group-blog. Hurrah!

North Wind

2011-02-25T15:10:00.002+01:00

Brrr... The North Wind is in full swing just now, chapping lips, and chilling even the stout who have a most enviously natural insulation against the cold. As a small individual with no body fat and an allergy to cold, I have been quite miserable.

So I bought a hot-pink hot-water bottle, to warm me during the night, and this exchange occurred:

Pharmacist: So... Where are you from?
Me: California.
Pharmacist: .... *hysterical laughter* Ohhhh. NOW I see why you need the hot-water bottle!

Yes. The stereotype is true: Californians - Northern or Southern - cannot handle the cold. But I'm secure in my identity as a Californian, so laugh away. You're probably just envious that our climate corresponds almost exactly to the climate that was found in the garden of Eden.

In any case - my hot-pink hot-water bottle smells, metaphorically, like poo. So my joy is tempered though my warmth increases.

Must be Dreaming

2011-02-25T07:28:00.002+01:00

Planet of the Apes...George of the Jungle...Dr. McNinja...They all feature monkey-types who are super-intelligent, well-read, kindly, and sometimes be-spectacled.

I suppose that is why it made perfect sense: I was sitting in a hot-tub, with another person and a gorilla, sipping champagne, and explaining to the gorilla the division of the speculative sciences. The gorilla was asking some very interesting questions about the division. I was also wearing a bikini. That tipped me off to the fact that it was a dream.

The division of the "sciences" (understood as an organized body of knowledge) are so:
1. Productive - for the making of beautiful/useful things.
2. Practical - for the guiding of conduct, etc. (economics, politics, don't'cha know)
3. Speculative - knowledge for its own sake (math, natural philosophy, metaphysics)

This division ain't Platonic nor Aristotelian in origin. Neoplatonics took some of Plato and some of Aristotle, on their division of the sciences/being, and put them together. Then the tri-part division was passed along as if it were Aristotelian. Neat, hmm? And now you know.

Awkward Turtle

2011-02-08T14:08:00.004+01:00

I had a most awkward moment in the supermarket.

I was picking out tomatoes and an elderly man hobbled up to me with a pack and asked if they were beautiful or no. Beauty, to me, signals aesthetics, as in, art. So I told him "they seem beautiful to me..." "NO!" he yelled "They are UGLY!" and put the tomatoes down in a huff. Shrugging, I went back to picking out my tomatoes, with the old man standing by. Carefully, I examined the tomatoes from all sides before - with satisfaction - I put them into my bag and walked off.

...It wasn't until afterwards that I realized the old man had poor eyesight and had been asking for help in picking out tomatoes. Oh dear. I must have seemed so sadistic to that poor man.

*NB - this conversation was entirely in Italian. Seeing as how I live in...Italy. And went like so:
Him: Questi pomodori sono belli?
Me: Mi sembra di si.
Him: No! Sono BRUTTI!

Relevancy

2011-02-02T16:28:00.004+01:00

(Vaguely modified exchange - modified because I'd just woken from a nap and was semi-articulate. That is, I removed the bit where I drooled slightly, made snorting noises, etc., etc.)

Housemate: What were you dreaming of?
Me: I was just thinking of ways to render Aquinas relevant (in today's ethics). Say you had a violent situation, where someone is threatening someone else, and you picked up Aquinas' commentary on the N.E. and whacked the guy across the head...that's one way of making him relevant in applied ethics.
Housemate: ... I don't know about relevant so much as useful.

Maybe, but I prefer my take!

New Duds

2011-02-01T12:26:00.004+01:00

I decided to change the design.

I guess I'm just a Vatican II girl.

Active Sense of Sacra Doctrine

2011-01-30T18:49:00.005+01:00

Well, I have a final tomorrow so I am going to organize my thoughts about it ON MY BLOG! The class is an introduction to St. Thomas (at a graduate level). Essentially, the class seems to be tying together the mission of the Order of Preachers, how Thomas Aquinas carried out that mission, and the methods appropriate to that mission.

Lemme 'splain: St. Dominic founded the Dominican order in 1216. However, he didn't simply wake up one day and go "oh! I should found an order!" No. In 1203, Don Diego, the Bishop of Osma, was sent by Alfonso IX a marriage for the king's son. St. Dominic was a prior, at the time, at a cathedral chapter and the bishop tapped Dominic for company on the mission. They travelled through Toulouse and were shocked and horrified by the Albis who weren't, y'know, the most spiritually apt peoples. They thought matter was bad and stuff. Given that the lush lives that many RC priests were living (there was much need of reform), and the lack of sound education, the Albis were growing and the RC preachers were ineffective. Don Diego's mission failed because the bride-to-be was rather rude and died en route to her new home and marriage. So, Don Diego and Dominic headed to Rome - Don Diego to ask if he could be set free from his bishopric so that he could go preach. The Pope said no and sent both Don Diego and Dominic to Languedoc to assist some Cistercians in converting the Albis. Dominic told the Cistercians to stop being silly and to lead austere lives. So the Cistercians did - and the number of Albi converts increased. Then, in 1206, he founded a house of sisters in Prouille. Then in 1215, Dominic and a group of men were canonically recognized within a diocese. But Dominic was thinking big - beyond the borders of the diocese. In 1215 there was also an ecumenical council where the Pope admonished bishops for neglecting to preach. After the conclusion of the council, Dominic asked the Pope if he could please have a new order (not confined to a diocese). The Pope said no, because it was a weird point in time and he wanted efforts to be focused on reform and preaching (or, he didn't want to embark on anything unknown when there's already huge problems at hand).Then, in 1216, Dominic said "Please, Mr. Pope, we will use the order of St. Augustine, which is already established. Ok? Ok." And so it was.

And in 1224-1226 (longest labor evar?), Thomas Aquinas was born. And blah blah blah until the year 1252 when he started studying to be a master. First, he had to go through 4 years as a bachelor: 2 years first of reading the bible and then Peter Lombard's Sentences, and then 2 years to write a commentary on the Sentences. The ratio of the actual Sentences to the commentaries, so I've heard, are about 1/10. Whew. This was to give them structure and hone their rationality and technique. The Master's job was to teach the bible. His assistant (a bachelor) would give a cursory introduction to whatever the topic was, and give sed contras and replies to the masters. See, a Master of Theology was called a Master of the Sacra Pagina: of Holy Writ. His job: to teach Sacra Doctrina from Holy Writ. The object of teaching is Sacra Doctrina via Biblical commentaries/etc.

The gospel communicates sound doctrine to us. Doctrine comes from the latin word docere, that is, to teach. The sacra bit comes in because of the Holiness of God. Now, to teach is an activity that requires both a teacher and a receiver of the teaching. The teacher, in this case, is God, who teaches on His own behalf of Himself. The receiver is the Universal Church. The medium is Holy Writ. Or, in other words, God is the teacher leading the receivers of His word to beatitude. Now, the reception of Sacra Doctrina presupposes grace which allows us to recognize God's teaching as true. We need the lumen fidei which precedes, ontologically, the reception and proclamation of the Word. You cannot say that Sacra Doctrina is theology. Theology is trying to understand Sacra Doctrina because theologians are servants of the Word, and teach on behalf of the Church.Then, it is the job of the Magisterium to determine what is an actual authentic reception of Sacra Doctrina. Hence, you cannot dissent from the Magisterium because, in so doing, you separate yourself from the receiver of the Word: the Universal Church.

Sacra Doctrina is, moreover, a sure knowledge since, by it, we participate in God's knowledge of Himself. It is, moreover, a science because there are two types of sciences: those sciences whose principles are known via our natural intelligence, and those sciences whose principles are known via some higher science (music to arithmetic is the classical example). Science is perfect knowledge, which we get to via demonstration by a cause - we show things via principles. But God's knowledge of Himself is not known by us in the same way - we have a mode of knowing. We know Him as our creator and as our end, which gives us an ontological and operational status. Christ, who shows us the way, is begotten of the Father and is sent on a mission to dwell within us. We can choose to accept Him. But it is only when we have lumen gloriae that we will be able to know Him as He is. Now, we accept on faith certain principles. These principles of faith are more fundamental than writings. These principles cannot be proven - but, against those who disagree with them, you can show either 1. that their arguments are not necessary or 2. unreasonable.

When teaching, you have to have some kind of order. So, in the summa contra gentiles, Aquinas re-structured his thought. Then, in the Summa, he gave an order: God in Himself, in His work, as our end, and how we get there. However, this is using the via iudici versus the via inventiones. That is, the order is by way of judgment, what is most abstract, rather than natural discovery.

Now, there are conceptual tools which help you understand the bible: i.e. philosophy. Philosophy is probable and extrinsic to the bible, however, and it is an uncertain method, which takes a long time, and yields few truths. Church fathers' arguments are intrinsic and probable. The bible itself, literally, is intrinsic and probable. Philosophy must be: sapiential, accepts criterion of truth, and must be open to being. There are 2 big questions in the OT: is all suffering punishment for sin? Is there personal survival after death? We can make argument within and from revelation/Scripture. That is, there are arguments about its being a holy history, for the immortality of the soul, and personal retribution. Or, you can argue from revelation to something that is not explicitly there.

There are two types of disputations: 1 to resolve doubt about whether something is the case (or refutatio - using accepted authorities), and 2 (magisterial) to lead to deeper understanding. On the first, you use authority, on the second you use reason via demonstration from cause to effect. This is still Sacra Doctrina.

Now, Aquinas did not develop a complete account of the world like Plato or Aristotle. But he did contribute when it came to logic, ethics, and metaphysics.

So, to sum up, the Dominican order was founded to preach Sacra Doctrina. Thomas Aquinas totally digged this mission and used it in his writings, understanding men as coming from God and returning to God. But, since you gotta know where you're going, God teaches us about Himself in scripture, which is received and digested by the Universal Church. Philosophy is a handy and external tool in Sacra Doctrina, but by no means sure and certain. Howevah, the theologian - servants of the Word of God - must know theology in order that they may make cogent arguments within and from revelation. And stuff.

Dum dum dum.

I want beer.

I think...

2011-01-29T11:49:00.002+01:00

That people should update more.

Cool kids are doing it.

Toast to the Laddies

2011-01-29T11:40:00.002+01:00

Here's how the men were insulted:

-----, thank you so much for that heartfelt toast to women – I suppose I can’t complain, after hearing that, that men aren’t communicative enough.

But now it’s time for you to listen. So, I will try to use small words and short sentences, in the hope that your wee capacities won't be unduly challenged. I am not prejudiced – some of my best friends are men! So. Pay attention now.

Women say men don’t listen, don’t communicate, are insensitive, and are a bunch of numpties. When you’re talking about Scottish men, you have to add that they are also famous for not wearing the pants in the house.

I must say, as a liberal Californian, that I am most appreciative of your attempts at solidarity with us women.

But, I realized, after reflection, that these complaints about men probably don’t apply to some of you seminarians. In this enlightened age, you gather together in your psychological seminars to discuss your inner feelings – sometimes you even find and embrace your inner woman…so to speak… I bet Robert Burns would have enjoyed that. (I hope you do, too.)

Now, I’ve been told that the purpose of this toast is to draw some flattering comparisons between you, seminarians, and the poet Robert Burns.

It is difficult to know where to begin.

From the portraits, it appears that Burns was a fairly handsome man… so that's out.

It also appears that Burns was somewhat intelligent. Now, the erudition of men never ceases to stun me. Men have such a head for history, dates, and times. It’s rather odd that they can never remember anniversaries or birthdays. In any case, I remember one man telling me about the Black Death. I’d thought it had something to do with trade lines. But no. As this man said: “You see…The Catholics killed all the witches and their cats. Because the cats did not keep the rat population in check, the Black Death was able to REALLY spread.” I never knew that.

I'd like to leave you with one thought, but I'm not sure you have anywhere to put it...

So here goes: Bless your hearts! Except for those areas of personal hygiene, looks, and intelligence, you laddies are within a short caber toss of average.

Here's to you, laddies!

To Do List for this Week

2011-01-21T18:10:00.000+01:00

1. Write a paper on Kant.
2. Write a paper on Aristotle.
3. Insult men.

Oh, hai.

2011-01-21T08:53:00.000+01:00

So... some of you might wonder - what exactly ARE my some of my study methods? Obviously, the answer is QUASI-CHIBI depictions of the various philosophers and their philosophies!

Pft. Obvious.

Food & Boyfriends

2011-01-20T10:39:00.000+01:00

There is a pizza and kebab place a few blocks away from where I live. It was run by a trio of brothers: Paolo, Amad, and Meshi. It is now run only by Paolo and Meshi as Amad is off studying.

The owners feel very fraternally towards me and another lay student, who I'll call E, and tend to be Extra Generous when it comes to stuffing a kebab full of meat or the slice of pizza they cut.

Meshi and Paolo are always sad that I am not out partying and think I'm too serious. They spend the moments that I am there trying to convince me to get a boyfriend and not study as much.

Meshi: Deirdre! How are you?
Me: HUNGRY! And tired.
Meshi: Why are you tired?
Me: Oh. Studying.
Meshi: You should not be studying so much and go out with your boyfriend!
Me: I don't have a boyfriend.
Meshi (in his mind - STILL!?!?): Deirdreeee... You need to have (pleadingly) At Least ONE Italian Boyfriend!
Me: I have no time for that!
Meshi (hopefully): I know a nice guy who loves to party all night! You could meet him...
Me: No, no! Thanks. I don't have time!

Next week...
Meshi: Deirdre! How are you?
Me: HUNGRY! And tired.
Meshi: You need to stop studying so much.
Me: Soon, soon - when I'm finished.
Meshi (accusingly): And when will you get a boyfriend!?
Me: Uh...

Next week... Rinse and repeat.

This "telling me not to study" thing is really popular, though. One of my friends from Africa came up to me as I was reading and told me:

"Deirdre. You should not be reading so much. Your head - iz very small." *illustrates the size of my head with his hands* "Put too much in it, and you will get confused." *spreads his hands apart and shrugs helplessly*

I smiled and nonchalantly leaned over the cover of the book I was reading: "BULLETS FOR THE BRIDEGROOM." (The cover on my book was not as cool, as this, but...).

2011-01-16T21:23:00.000+01:00

These are my two roommates in Rome on the left-hand side of the fountain. Funny thing - most Italians startle quite easily at a gorilla costume. They even hid their babies when my roommate passed by!

I'm sort of envious of early AD philosophers - they could (theoretically) read every topical book. This is now impossible due to the accumulation of written work over the centuries and the variety of languages in which said stuff is written (translations don't really jive with actual research - meaning you have to learn: Greek, Latin, French, and German). And so many books are considered required reading! Aristotle or Aquinas might salivate at the idea of so much learning, so easily available, so beautifully categorized. Frankly, it appalls me (a bit).

I feel as if I must rush madly through book after book in a marathon-esque way, rather than spend time sitting and reading and re-reading and re-re-reading One Single Book or even One Single Question from the Summa.

So tonight, instead of reading, I will watch anime. That, I think, is the only reasonable response.

And if you'd like to argue, take it up with Socrates.

2010-09-23T01:56:00.001+02:00

Foof! Where have I been?

I've been in the Bay Area, computerless (for all blogging purposes)! Back in Rome, my computer decided to imitate a William Shatner death scene. Le sigh.

Over the summer, I've been doing things that people are wont to do over the summer. Some of the things...like...organizing a conference on the Manhattan Declaration, or helping coordinate a Robert George lecture, blah blah blah. But not much swimming, because water is cold. In Rome, I developed a strange hypersensitivity to cold - raynaud's syndrome - which is relatively harmless of itself, but very good for Creeping People Out.

People who observe this hypersensitivity to cold cannot help but grab my hands and chafe them lovingly and sympathetically. Win!

Pray for the people of SCC

2010-04-08T18:10:00.000+02:00

The poor, poor students. I know what they are feeling right now (details will not be provided) - and it is not a nice feeling. The college couldn't be kept open for one more month? Isn't this a breach of contract? It is, at any rate, a breach in justice. A commitment is made to the students and professors - a covenant - and if you can't keep that commitment, you don't inform students in this way at this hour. GAH! ARGH! Can't there even be a last-minute appeal to try to keep the college open for one more month?

I don't imagine anyone in the administration of SCC is pleased, and it must have been a painful decision, but this is being gone about in entirely the wrong way.

Hello, World!

2010-01-27T17:05:00.000+01:00

It's finals time in good old Italy, which means I'm starting to - le gaspe - do some actual study! I've been diving into the Summa, recently, to learn about the virtue of religion (how it is t'eh awesome), and I've come to the conclusion that Thomas is all right as a philosopher. Not that I'm a Thomist or anything - one person I was in conversation with said in passing that "we're all Thomists, here," and I wanted to jump up on the table and scream that I was not a Thomist but a philosopher! I'm too young in my study of Thomas to be a Thomist, unless I'm a connatural one, and, besides, labels make me uneasy because they're thrown around so lightly (despite having profound implications) that who knows what they mean to anyone. Being a Thomist might mean anything from a fan-boy to the person who loves Aquinas so much they can actually decipher his handwriting. Why be misunderstood as holding certain views or positions that you don't even know about in the first place?

Now, for a few updates!

I have met Cnytr, while she was stopping over in Rome, and she is absolutely wonderful, with a keen sense of humor and a knowledge of things early Church/medieval and cool that staggers the mind (or my mind, at least). I felt rather shy when we met, because I'm all about philosophy and don't know nuthin' about liturgical particulars or many things medieval, whereas she knows all the juicy bits. But we discovered that we both love Fr. Ted, so each of us knew the other was alright and we shook hands over dinner. In summary, CNYTR gets bumped up from "staple blogs" to the "interesting peoples" category!

Another person to enter the "interesting peoples" category is Fr. Philip Powell. This blogger goes to my university, and I met him while having dinner with a friend. I haven't followed his blog extensively, what with having little time and all, but what little I've read seems to merit this more attention!

So does my housemate, the Cultural Enigma. She's a travel-buddy, housemate, cook extraordinaire, and has even MORE interesting adventures with Italians than I do... I think... which she should blog about!

Oh! I also had the great pleasure of meeting Zadok the Roman during this semester. Zadok also is being moved up to interesting peoples!

And what interesting experiences have I had, lately?

Well, after having dinner with Cnytr, she had to use the facilities at the restaurant, so I was bopping about at the table and noticed that our waiter was setting tables in a truly superb manner. I complimented him and said that what he was doing was an art - so he showed me that it was an art, even down to the folding of a napkin so that when a patron sat down and pulled it onto their lap it would open just so. He invited me to try setting a table in this manner, and I politely declined. Etiquette rules here are rather complicated and it's good to err on the side of non-action when someone invites you to do something- particularly if it's a man who is doing the inviting! He moved on.

The other waiter in the restaurant, observing the exchange, and, thinking to act as a wingman of sorts, came to the table as Cnytr was returning. He told me, with a sly smirk, that the waiter whose table-setting skills I'd complimented was "il primo piato" (I think this translates as "the main course" - ooo la la!) and that, though the man was only 36 years old, was the "boss" of the restaurant! "He's been boss for 36 years?" I stammered, confused. "NOOOO!" he shrieked, and called out to Il Primo Piato something that amounted to "she thinks you're very OLD!" "I'm ONLY 18!" was his indignant response (a lie, but Italians are shameless when it comes to lying about their age) as he flew back to the table to disperse any ridiculous ideas about his age. The COOK, meanwhile, had ALSO overheard the exchange and HE peered out from the kitchen to defend his boss' youth and clasp and shake his hands at me and say "DAI, DAI, DAI!"

Cnytr knows Italian, but she didn't follow this exchange and was staring at me at this point - what on earth had I done or said? ALL the staff for the restaurant was talking or "DAI"-ing at me/us! Thankfully, we were leaving. So, Il Primo Piato, wooed by my complimenting his table-setting and forgiving my thinking he was old, opened the door and murmured..."the restaurant closes at quarter to 12... you should... come back then." I thanked him.

Then Cnytr and I left. Cnytr wanted me to stick around after that, just to see what ELSE might happen that evening!

Time for Muzak!

2010-01-05T23:13:00.000+01:00

Warren Zevon is a musician I absolutely adore:

Now into the realm of Sacred Music:

I think you need to learn how to count to four:

Finally, a good ol' AMV:

Let's Get Practical - Pontifical Universites in Rome - Tips

2009-12-30T23:52:00.000+01:00

H'ok, so - if you're coming to Rome, there are a few things you (as a student) should know:

Shampoo and Conditioner are SUPER EXPENSIVE and of BAD QUALITY! If you are of the female persuasion (and for some males), you may be in the habit of washing your hair every day. Break that habit! Your hair AND your pocket-book will thank you.

Toadis - find this discount food store and stick to it LIKE GLUE. You'll save oodles and oodles of money if you go to Toadis (pronounced "Toad-issss).

Don't bother to bring peanut butter. People on online message boards, etc., are always saying: "blah blah blah...peanut butter is SO hard to find here...blah blah blah." LIES!

Ziplock bags are super handy, ne? Bring a box because you cannot find them here. SRSLY.

Again, if you are of the female persuasion (men, don't read this if you're squeamish), don't worry about...er... the necessities for that process that women go through. Italian brands be fine.

Bring clothes. Clothing here be ridiculously expensive.

Don't bother with super-duper-heavy coats. You only need that type of coat 4 days out of the entire winter season.

Bring a backup power-cord for your laptop. If your power-cord fails (which is easy enough, given that voltage converters can easily malfunction and totally fry your cord), you're up a creek with no paddle because most American companies do not ship such small items overseas to Italy. BRING A BACKUP POWER CORD. JUST BRING AN EXTRA.

DON'T worry about the banking situation. If you have MC/Visa, you can easily withdraw money here. Your bank figures the current conversion rates, so you don't need to worry about currency exchange. There will be a small fee that the bank you're withdrawing from will charge, but that's pretty inconsequential. So DON'T FRET about money.

UNLESS you're considering withdrawing from a random ATM in the wall or at a train-station. DON'T DO EITHER. The number of stories I've heard about card-skimming at stations is ridiculously high, and random ATMs in random walls are never to be trusted. Only use an ATM at a bank branch, unless you have absolutely no other choice.

Annnnd. That's all for now. Any questions, ye people considering applying to a Pontifical University in Rome?

***EDIT***

Zadok the Roman adds:

Bring a surge protector. In my experience, Italian electricity is unpredictable. That's why any electrical appliance I cared about was on a surge protector.

Italian cold & flu remedies are useless. Bring your medicine of choice from home.

And a friend asked about dental hygiene products.

MOUTHWASH I do not use, but a friend informs me that Italian mouthwash is weaksauce and it's best to buy a Costco sized jug and bring that if mouthwash is your thing.

TOOTHPASTE AND TOOTHBRUSHES are absolutely a-ok.

Beauty in Truth - Ugliness in Use

2009-12-23T12:49:00.000+01:00

"A Room with a View" is one of those essential chick-flick-y things, eh? Never having seen the movie, and being computer-less and in want of some occupation (I am using a computer now, thanks to the generosity of a housemate), I picked up the novel by E.M. Forster and started reading.

May I just say: Bleh! Bleh! Bleh!

Forster is on my poo-list of writers! He's so full of his own writing that he completely neglects the characters - they're these rough cutouts of people who do and say things that no one would say or do because Forster HAS A VISION GOSHDARNIT and his characters WILL LEAD SO TOTALLY UP TO THAT VISION WHETHER IT'S NATURAL TO THEIR CHARACTER OR NO.

What is good literature? Good literature, I'd posit, has something to do with eternity - characters grapple, in their own way, as best they can, not necessarily with explicit great questions (because, remember, a character approaches these questions *in their own way* which may be either dim and obscure or clear and exact) but with questions that touch on the nature and destiny of man. Why else is Wiseblood so interesting? Or the LOTR? Or Crime and Punishment? Is it because we see that the author is driving home a point and operating his characters like puppets or is it because a character is articulating an understanding of the universe which, even if wrong, allows us to react against or with it - or to hold ourselves back and remain neutral? Good literature never becomes stale because great questions (who am I? Where am I going? Does God exist? What is evil?) never become stale and a sensitive and subtle approach to them simply sets a question off brilliantly and gently. Further, the reader is left to form their own opinion regarding whatever is being treated of - even Fielding, who loved to interject himself into his novels, simply entreated the reader to this or that view rather than commanding them to it.

It's not good literature to approach A question, make it THE question, and cause ALL your characters to behave as if it WERE the question and to expect the reader to sympathize. It may or may not be THE question, but there are sure to be disagreements among any character remotely resembling a human being. Otherwise, t'ain't art, it's propaganda. So, don't, Mr. Author Dear, force YOUR idea down the throats of your characters - let them BE, for goodness sake, and, if you're a good writer, you will wind up where you want to be at the end because the characters will still be imbued with you but in a more natural way that respects the characters and the reader.

A Room with a View gets my "never read this trash" vote.

How you say? "'igh?" "Oh, HI"

2009-12-19T01:32:00.000+01:00

Slowly but surely, Italians are beginning to make a little bit more sense to me. Per esempio, ho fato i biscotti per una classe in italiano, and became absolutely ADORED. Italians who had viewed me with some amount of suspicion (WHY was an American taking classes in Italian when she could take them in ENGLISH? Is she cRaZy!?!) all semester plumped firmly onto my side once they realized that the "American cookies" I had made (not bought - MADE - that fact quite impressed them) signaled that I was not so bad for an American.

Really, given the way most Americans conduct themselves - even in Pontifical Universities - I cannot blame anyone for considering us (Americans as a whole) brutish, crude, and, even, a disgrace. Many Americans come to tour and believe that *paying* for something gives them the right to act however they want - on the bus, they shout, they swear, they carry on indecent conversations because they believe that Italians are SO IGNORANT that they cannot understand what the Americans are saying. We dress in ways that are truly appalling (I'm not talking mismatched patterns, here, but revealing clothing -- it stands out a lot more in the sea of higher necklines and covered shoulders). We're ignorant of culture, history, and etiquette., etc., etc. Truly, we do not present well at all!

Whereas, I've discovered, many Italians are extraordinarily fluent in American culture and language, to the point that it's almost unusual to come across an Italian without a rudimentary knowledge of English (granted, English is one of those universal languages, but, still...) and certainly without a knowledge of some American culture!

Le sigh. 'mericans! At least pretend to be civilized!

Spread the Truth by Killing All Its Messengers? An Ingenious Plan.

2009-12-05T20:03:00.000+01:00

I think the Circumcellions are hilarious.

Something like this popped into my head as I read about them:

Be Respectabibble!

2009-11-28T18:49:00.001+01:00

People! Respect the idea!

I find the notion that people should run around with the attitude of disrespect towards ideas/propositions to be appalling. This attitude, sadly, is widespread. It is here, it is now, and I think it's because the wee-punks who run around thinking it's terribly deep to FLY IN THE FACE OF X simply have never opened themselves in such a way as to be formed by things that are terribly beautiful, deep, and true. Ironically, they're not the radical free thinkers that they think they are. They are caaaayyyyeeeeged in their own 'eads.

For example, one gentleman (who I met once - don't run around thinking I'm a terrible, horrible gossip!) and I had a discussion about "Wuthering Heights." I made some general, interpretive remark, and the gentleman forcefully asserted that the reason the woman married the man she did was because she was obsessed with power! Not a word I could say, not a textual basis I could provide to the contrary, would budge this man from his firm conviction that the woman in Wuthering Heights was a power-hungry wench. Eventually, he simply said "look, I KNOW I'm right." Next, this gentleman (well, perhaps I should say "barbarian") told me that MUCH of literature is about power-hungry women.

Perhaps he'd been reading M. Bovary earlier that day? Anyway, the gentleman was very happy with his neatly reasoned argument, and left satisfied that he'd, er, convinced me (I'd given up trying to speak with him and reverted to mundane pleasantries).

OKAYEEE!

You see, a thing should be allowed to be the thing that it is. Love, oddly enough, entails letting the people whom you love be who they are. When you force something onto them (say, making them take a calligraphy class with you because you think it is so t'eh awesome - which it is, but some people prefer to keep their admiration for art at a distance from the actual practice of that art), you're not letting them be.

Take this poem from Dorothy Parker's for example:

They hail you as their morning star
Because you are the way you are.
If you return the sentiment,
They'll try to make you different;
And once they have you, safe and sound,
They want to change you all around.
Your moods and ways they put a curse on;
They'd make of you another person.
They cannot let you go your gait;
They influence and educate.
They'd alter all that they admired.
They make me sick, they make me tired.

While I am not quite in accord with D.P. here, on the subject of men in general, I must say that she has put her finger on an attitude - many people do not immerse themselves into an idea but impose themselves onto that idea. One finds many screeds on the internet regarding Catholicism: "doohoooooo," people chortle, "dey believe dat Noah built dis huuuuuge ship-thing with many dem animals! hurrr! hurrr! How stoooopid! Religion! Stooopid!" What a marvelously articulated argument! It amounts to someone thinking something couldn't possibly be true and, of course, if that's your 'tude, you WILL NOT actually arrive at an idea itself because you cannot get past YOUR OWN HEAD.

Consider conspiracy-theorists - nothing you can say will make them change their minds. They have decided to interpret the world through some specs that they have fashioned. They are not encountering reality or ideas. They cannot LET a thing BE ITSELF. And why not? Because they don't want to.

Disrespecting ideas is appalling not because there is, necessarily, anything respectable about an idea. There are some really terrible ideas. Disrespecting ideas/propositions is appalling because it does not permit a man to act freely within the world. I wouldn't consider a man to be acting freely when he is operating off of false information! But we're operating off of false - or, at best, limited - information if we do not permit things to be what they are. If you're so stuck in a world of your own making, you're never going to be a free thinker. To be a free thinker entails the respect of ideas or propositions because, otherwise, you would never be GET anywhere IN thinking because you would always be thinking about things within the enclosure of your OWN HEAD: you will always arrive at the conclusions that you had in the first place, you will never experience true curiosity, you will never, ever, be free.

So DUDES. CHILLAX already! Let ens be.

Yesterday, I ordered a cornuto at the bar...

2009-11-06T01:22:00.000+01:00

But there is a vasty difference between a "cornuto" and a "cornetto."

*cough*

Speaking of horns, this scene from the Last Unicorn never fails to move me:

I hate talented people.

2009-11-05T12:38:00.000+01:00

Alright, perhaps I don't hate them - yet they make me look so bad. But I can get practically any baby to smile and I can cook...so...there. (**sniff**)

Let me introduce you to some talent:

STRONGHOLD!
This is a webcomic written by my internet-buddy, Brian V., and it's quite superbly illustrated. Plenty of webcomics fall into the trap that plenty of women fall into: a cultivation of the externals the extent to that it detracts from the heart of the story or the being of a person. Everyone has seen the tragedy that is a woman walking around defaced by makeup. Where is the person? Who knows! A similar phenomenon occurs in webcomics - what's the story? What's the point? Who can tell! CAN'T YOU SEE THERE'S PRETTINESS, EH? EH? KAWAAAAIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!! Oh - that plot point? It was so that this character could pose in this totally t'eh awesome way. Stronghold t'ain't like that. Brian is in love with his story and the artist also seems to be grockin' the story. You can tell. (Sorry, sorry! The relation of an artist to their work of art reminded me of this song). Art is made by artificers - from the latin "ars" which translates, roughly, to skill. It is only the human being who can create art - it is only the human being who can so mold creation so that it becomes something new, something beautiful, something that we bring about because we believe that what we are creating is actually something good. A work of art is both dependent on and independent of the artificer - we don't have to know who sculpted what in order to appreciate the sculpture. But that sculpture didn't simply appear in the world for the delectation of man. Art must be created after a pattern that is born within the mind of the artificer - or within their soul, from their being. Whoa. Deep. Sometimes the creation does not match the idea that we have in our heads - I, for example, have had a picture in my head for years that I know I shall never be able to depict. The technical skills necessary to put it into the world would take years of leisure to acquire. Now, I can't say exactly what the pattern is in Brian's head, but it's complicated, and, I think, something beautiful and good and human. It may be a bit difficult to follow the pattern (as Brian admits), but cut thou him a break. You don't get better at something by abstaining from any practice of said thing! I, along with the reviewer here, think somethin' awesome is occurring - major props to Kevin Roberts for the art, Martin Krause for the editing, and Brian V. for the writing!

THE HIP HOP ODYSSEY
An acquaintance in Rome mentioned his site to me, in passing. I must admit I fell in love with the use of white space on this site and paid more attention to the typography than to the music (at first). I must also admit: I hate the genre of hip hop. Most hip hop I've heard is just plain nasty. Perhaps Berkeley's proximity to Oakland is to blame: hearing what qualifies as hip hop being blasted out of pimped up cars with spinning rims did not contribute to a favorable impression of the genre as a whole. Objectifying women? Check! Gratuitous senseless violence? Check! Gangsta affirmation? Check! I also had a classmate turn on...er...suggestive hip hop when I was going over one of his papers, which adds an extra level of "ick" to my acquaintance with hip hop and a shade of absurdity. Suggestive hip hop? Really? Hee hee! But, I recognize that hip hop, as a form of art (fine art --> music), can produce beauty and goodness and that any medium of art can be subverted or utilized for whatever horrid thing a human is capable of imagining. Some mediums of art are more susceptible to subversion (consider photography or film, for example), but the medium itself is not to blame for its abuse. I do think hip hop is a medium susceptible to abuse - perhaps because of the heavy beats that lend themselves very well to the purposes of blasting music - but I'm not really qualified to make this statement as I haven't seriously listened to enough hip hop to justify that judgment. And, anyways, there's this thing in logic called correlation, not causation. Sigh sigh. My training as a philosopher will not allow me to condemn the genre itself! I do love some of the tracks on this website, and I do think that the people involved in this project are extraordinarily talented: it's interesting to listen to because the composers/creators are playing with the music. Heaven preserve me from people who approach music too seriously! I am no musician, but I am a dancer (dancing is a form of art...srsly), and the people who tend to be very serious about dance also tend to exclude a number of possibilities deemed too...unorthodox...too...undignified...too...something. A dance is often enhanced by breaking common patterns into pieces to form new patterns. I'd imagine something analogous happens in music - though I couldn't say for sure - since music is the succession of sounds forming patterns. So give The Hip Hop Odyssey a shot! It's interesting, and, I think, kinda beautiful.

I've added these thingies to my sidebar at right, too, that way you can always find them -->

Marketing Being

2009-10-16T22:32:00.000+02:00

The markets in Italy are wonderful - fresh gnocchi, eggs, fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, and...er...old...but fresh cheese, are readily available. But choose your vendor wisely and, then, stick to them like glue. The vendors develop a rapport with their clients. If you are one of theirs, they give you tips on which fruits/vegetables are particularly ripe or best for your purposes (if you let them know what you're cooking). If you are one of theirs, you get fresh, free herbs - and sometimes vegetables - because you're theirs and they have a sort of obligation to do right by you because you've bound yourself to them with the decision to patronize their market stall. This works both ways - if you have picked your vendor, and become disloyal to him, other vendors *know* you're disloyal and are more likely to give you produce of a sub-par quality. You see, in most fruit and vegetable markets, you Don't Touch the Wares. That's Just Gross. The vendor will come out from behind the register and pick out the produce you indicate - they handle the produce while you watch and they CAN give you the worse wares. Why give what's good to the disloyal if you have loyal customers?

On another note, Brian V. recently wrote a small blogpost on ambiguity. I'd been thinking about this topic before he wrote wot he wrote, because I am now in a foreign country in which, to be American, is to open yourself up to a host of bad things. American women are easy. Americans are easy pickpocket targets. Americans are pushovers. Americans are stupid.

Really, I've never thought of myself as an American or of identifying myself with any particular group - but that might be because I am a mix of Filipino, Chinese, Spanish, Scottish, Irish, Norwegian, and possibly French and Italian. My ancestors were all about diversity. Add to this that I grew up in the Bay Area which has more ethnicities than you could shake a stick at, and you might understand that strict ethnic delineations only make sense to me on a superficial level.

I move among cultures. I don't see different cultures as those things that exclude others, but culture qua culture as something inclusive of all that is good in all cultures - or, in other words, Catholic. Really, I'm comfortable not with ambiguity persay, but I am comfortable with truly loving aspects of a different culture and falling into those aspects. For example, I love, love, love both sushi and Mexican food. I make very good sushi rolls and very good salsa verde. These are radically different cultures, and only a small bit of those cultures, but I don't see this as an intrusion into another culture. Rather, it is an absorption of the good. 'cause sushi is good. And so is salsa verde. And, if you truly love something, you're not going to be treating it in an unseemly or disrespectful or superficial manner - this encompasses not just food, but also clothing, art, literature, etc.

To define oneself is a difficult thing - we are always becoming more or less of who we are. Our intellection of being is a sort of creepy thing. In our soul, we become all things, we have these phantasms, these whatchamacallits. We've grasped the thing - we've touched on being. I suppose what I'm saying is that I've never regarded this ambiguity as an experiment, but as part of being human. Wouldn't it be just a bit wrong if there were something good in front of you and you declined to participate in that good because it just wasn't your cultch'a? The definition of self is continuous and culminates in death. There will always be some ambiguity.

Granted, if you're intoxicated with the idea that you might be mistaken for a Jew, Italian, etc., and you pursue aspects of another culture because of that, the experiment should end. I take delight in being mistaken for an Italian not only because it protects me from unpleasantness and opens doors, but also because it means I am succeeding in grocking parts of their culture. I do not pretend to be Italian - but I do imitate Italians because it is where I am and there are certain conventions that residents of Italy follow and which I also ought to follow because it would be discourteous otherwise. Even if that were not so, I would still delight in being mistaken for an Italian because they have deep (and, in some cases, deeply flawed) loves. Such a mistaken identification may reflect well on one's own being. I'm not talking here of the way one dresses, but of something more profound - an attitude in the face of the universe that takes delight in what ought to be delighted in (though, of course, in the mode proper to the object/subject).

So, if you learn to see that X is wonderful, then, dude, you're on the right track... And, unless it goes against a culture to do or wear x, go for it - whatever it is.

Dude...

Hee hee! So American.

I am not on speaking terms with the weather in Rome.

2009-10-16T08:57:00.001+02:00

You see, a few days ago, I put on two skirts - the one underneath to poof up the top skirt which is made of silk (a very light fabric). The silk skirt is a circle skirt which means, essentially, lots of fabric - qua poodle skirts. I got up early and sat on the porch. It was sunny, clear, still, and beautiful. Perfect! It was my first day of class, so I did my hair up pretty, donned everything I thought necessary, and headed blithely out the door.

Shortly thereafter, clouds darkened the skies and the wind started gusting rather strongly.

Right by Piazza Venezia (a major artery for traffic in Rome), I encountered a...wardrobe malfunction. Circle skirts made out of light fabric do not mix well with wind. Let's just say that, in the middle of the morning traffic, right by Piazza Venezia, I pulled quite the Marilyn Monroe when the wind came. The Italian men were rather fans of this. Remember, I had another skirt on underneath that was quite, quite proper, so it wasn't as if anything indecent really happened, but the knowledge that one's modesty is preserved does little to comfort when under the intense scrutiny of dozens of male drivers with a horn at their disposal.

It was quite embarrassing. I made my way in a daze to the Angelicum in short, little runs between gusts of wind - my poor heart beating with anxiety all the time.

Phew. Safe at the Angelicum! Oh, what's this? Two classes in English that I thought were next semester (because they weren't listed in the student book which listed all the classes) were actually - surprise! - *this* semester and would require the power of bilocation to attend because they were smack in the middle of two other classes I needed to take. So I, regretfully, exchanged them for the equivalent classes in Italian and started my first class a shattered wreck and shadow of my former self.

Next up: Italian Markets - choose your vendors wisely.

I can haz Rome?

2009-10-09T14:50:00.000+02:00

Ohhh my lovelies.

Obama ain't got nothin' on Rome. Rome is truly a place of change. Is your bill 2.57 euros? The clerk will wait forever as you count out 57 cents - and the people behind you, in line, will wait for forever and a half. Having the correct amount of change is *almost* a requirement and you run the risk of being turned away if you don't have that 57 cents. Why? Who knows! You might as well ask: why all this senseless bureaucracy? Boh. It's just the way it is and you have to accept it on those terms or else you'll screw yourself over.

Now - I haven't any real tales of Rome to tell. Rome is an exhausting place - hot, humid, full of mosquitoes, art, nooks, crannies, sidestreets, beggars, trash, smoke, ambulances, random cardinals ducking into aforementioned sidestreets, smells, etc. It is, in short, a lot to take in - and so, I am waiting until the tourists to go away before taking most of it in. Where there are tourists, there are pickpockets. So, when I see a group of tourists I assume the characteristic "look" of native Italian women: purse your lips ever so slightly, look just a bit nettled about something, throw your shoulders back and look hawkish. That look works! Srsly - I've been mistaken as an Italian by Italians twice since I figured out that look. Win!

One of the things I didn't really expect about navigating a foreign country is that it is scary to ask for things - I've almost sat down and cried a couple of times because I've tried to do some very simple things, like ordering a meat at the butcher's, and encountered epic communication failures. People do not always make the effort to understand you and will stare at you blankly. Others will immediately grock that you're trying to communicate and will help you however they can.

You are completely vulnerable and that is a little scary.

That's all for now - ciao, ciao, ciao!

Adjusting to Rome

2009-09-30T17:41:00.000+02:00

I am in Rome!

My trip TO Rome was awful. I became quite ill on both legs of my flight - and the take-off of the plane from Philadelphia was extremely turbulent, horrid, and gross: the plane dropped (ahh!), rocked, and people swore and gasped, etc.

"So THIS is what I've gotten myself into," I thought, and regretted ever stepping on the plane.

But now I am here and Rome is quite interesting. I'm not going so far as to say "awesome" or "super-duper," yet, but it isn't as foreign as I expected it to be. Oh, sure, there's the whole "crossing the street" thing, weird labels on everything, forward men, different store practices, tourists galore, and a host of differences that I need to adjust to. Yet, in all, it's feel is similar to that of the Bay Area (San Francisco, in particular).

So far, I have been mistaken for French and Italian but not American (until I do something stupid like not printing the tag for vegetable/fruit purchases). Che fa complimenti!

I have also discovered that you don't need to stand in line for the General Papal Audiences. The Swiss Guard, you see, don't mind letting the individual here and there in - particularly, I think, if they're pretty young women. While many forlorn tourists thronged behind the area reserved for the general audience, I and another girl approached the Swiss Guard and tried charm. And lo - we got within 15 feet of the Pope.

Sadly, I have no very good pictures because this persistent man in front of me, wearing a blue shirt, insisted on standing on his chair and obscuring every view and shot that he could... So I have shots of a blue shirt as this man heroically threw himself everywhere but where he should be. But I saw the Pope! And he has a very cute accent when he speaks in English.

Certain things are much easier than I thought they would be - so my apprehension is quite a bit lowered. Phew.

Ciao, ciao, ciao, ciao.

Primer for applying to a Pontifical University

2009-09-27T11:55:00.000+02:00

A gentleman asked me today about studying at ye olde Angelicum. My write-up of the process is here: http://givetongue.blogspot.com/2009/08/primer-for-applying-to-pontifical.html

In 24 hours, I will be departing Berkeley for life abroad in Rome...

What was I thinking!?

I feel like chickening out at the last moment and saying "Ha hah!!!!! PSYCHE!!!!" after hiding all of my documentation that clearly indicates this is no psyche.

2009-09-10T18:49:00.000+02:00

When I tell Good Catholic Folk my age that I went to (le gaspe!) UC Berkeley, I usually get the question "... .. . how was it?"

You see, my alma mater gives me quite the disreputable air. I've noticed this doesn't seem to happen to Catholics who went to MIT, Stanford, etc. - let alone a Catholic University, however much or little Catholic in actuality they are. It's just Berkeley. Or maybe it's just me? *sigh* *sigh*

Ok, ok, so there's the occasional nuddie protest at my college and smelly tree-sitters with names like "dumpster-muffin" give us a bad name, but really, what are you Good Catholic Folk supposing I did over my college years? You see, after Good Catholic Folk my age learn of my alma mater, a sudden quiet falls, and then the inevitable questions - "Soooo.... *cough* Read any good books by Thomas Aquinas, recently?" or "(inching away) Er...What are your thoughts on women priests?" and if you say you favor premarital interdigitation you'll get QUITE the raised eyebrow because it sounds too appalling.

These questions come across as:"HELLLOOOO!?!?!? R U CATOLIC!?!?!"

Why, yes. Yes I am. Why couldn't you just...you know...share a pint with me or something like that? Then you'd find out how Catholic I was. Why do you have to be ALL WEIRD?

2009-09-02T05:41:00.000+02:00

Okie dokie.

Ben & Jerry boycott initiated. Hmm. Not that I ate their ice-cream, before - I love Häagen-Dazs.

People are more interested in being politically correct than ontologically correct.

= / =

2009-09-01T07:22:00.000+02:00

A lot of people running around in the world think swing looks like this:

Well... It sorta looks like that. It's more like this:

And this:

Disney bought Marvel

2009-08-31T20:18:00.000+02:00

First they came for the childhood classics.

Then they came for the video rights from Studio Ghibli's non-internationally publicized films.

Then they came for Pixar.

Then they came for Marvel.

Then there was no one left, when they came for me.

--------------------------

The Lady's Reward

2009-08-27T06:57:00.000+02:00

I can't help but love the poetess Dorothy Parker - she is exquisitely cynical, but her lyrics betray that she is an actual romantic searching for love and truth even if all her efforts to find those things are frustrated. And that's what many people are after (love and truth) - we just don't all admit when we've found them and call them by other, ugly names.

The Lady's Reward
Lady, lady, never start
Conversation toward your heart;
Keep your pretty words serene;
Never murmur what you mean.
Show yourself, by word and look,
Swift and shallow as a brook.
Be as cool and quick to go
As a drop of April snow;
Be as delicate and gay
As a cherry flower in May.
Lady, lady, never speak
Of the tears that burn your cheek-
She will never win him, whose
Words had shown she feared to lose.
Be you wise and never sad,
You will get your lovely lad.
Never serious be, nor true,
And your wish will come to you-
And if that makes you happy, kid,
You'll be the first it ever did.

Tutta su Eva

2009-08-27T03:40:00.000+02:00

Some friends have been "OH WOW! WHAT'S THAT?" when this gets its turn on my playlist. So, for your enjoyment!

Carmen Consoli is an Italian cantautrice (singer-songwriter), who has a lovely, lovely, voice and delivery. My grasp of Italian isn't such that the nuances of her lyrics are caught, but Eva (Eve) is defending herself in this song and swearing before God and her mother that she has not the fault and was not the landlady of her senses when she did wot she did.

This is also a pretty song:

Well-Heeled

2009-08-27T03:13:00.000+02:00

Italians - they do the whole "shoe" thing quite nicely, and take it quite seriously, so I bought two pairs of high-heels and am breaking them in so that I will not be laughed out of house and Rome, come late September. Lo! What a difference heels make in how people perceive you. Not only are you suddenly two inches taller, but you also gain poise, instant elegance, and age - at least, in the eyes of men. It's quite flattering when men stop to stare and you know you're dressed in a totally, rockingly modest way with shoes. Italians - you have got something good going on there. Don't stop. I love it. Kiss kiss.

Yesterday, a professor-friend was reading aloud from a Catholic medieval penitentiary book to some student-friends. It was hilarious - though many forbidden acts requiring penance involved vomit, animals, and R-rated material (tsk tsk). But I would just like to share a few things from it:

Mothers: if, for the sake of curing a fever, you put your daughter in the oven OR on a roof, you shall do penance for 7 years! ... .. .

Cooks: according to the book, if a weasel falls in liquid and drowns then you are to throw the liquid out - and if you feed that liquid to others, three fasts are laid upon you! If, on the other hand, the weasel is still alive, you take the weasel for food and sprinkle the liquid with holy water and use it if you need to.

This seemed to be the general rule: animal falls in your food? Check! Is it alive? Yes. Eat it. And sprinkle the food/liquid it was in with holy water. (Did they have holy water dispensers akin to salt and pepper shakers, I wonder?). Is it dead? Yes. Throw everything away. Don't feed anything to anyone. 'cause that's just...ew.

Would-be-thieves: know that if you, by stealth, steal a monk (?!??!), you shall do penance for 7 years. (And if you steal them in public?)

You can read more fun tidbits here.

Primer for Applying to a Pontifical University in Rome

2009-08-26T01:56:00.000+02:00

If you commit yourself to studying at a Pontifical University in Italy, you need to be cRaZy!

First step - you find lodging in Rome and commit to a lease. You say "What you say!?" because you have, cleverly, noticed that at this stage you have Not Been Accepted to your university of choice, that you have no way of knowing whether any of the apartments you've idly been looking up on craigslist are any good, whether the landlady (padrona) is nice, whether your roommates will be nice, etc. Why! You might not even know Italian! I didn't - so I networked with round-eyes (*cough*) I trusted and found something after a few months. I still don't know if my roommates are cool people - I don't even know their names. But, I'm sure they're nice ladies, for my padrona rents to women attending Pontifical Universities (PU's aren't noted for drawing thuggish folks), but they might be quite, quite boring. Their idea of a shockingly fun Friday evening might be playing Candyland and drinking herbal teas...before....a....PILLOWFIGHT!!!

Bleeeeeehhhhhh.....Bleh. Bleh.

Now - get a copy of your landlord's national ID card and get him to fill out a letter of invitation (available here). ***!!!!This is important!!!!*** You can't get a study visa without these documents. Srsly. I found out the hard way. Not all Italian consulate websites give detailed instructions as to what you need for a visa - it's just sort of assumed you'd know - and the national id bit was one of the documents that was not listed in my consulate's 14 page document concerning visa requirements. "La la la!," I said. "Here are my documents." "Young lady, do you know where your landlady's national id card is!?" "Oops," I said, outloud. Inside I said "@!#$%%^&%$#@!#$," only in a very ladylike and proper manner.

NEXT: I hope you're friends with your pastor. Your pastor needs to recommend you to the local ordinary (bishop)* who will write you a letter of recommendation (if you're good), and sign your declarations of sustenance (this "declaration of sustenance" bit is explained, quite nicely, here). Make this entire process as simple as possible for the bishop and your pastor. Send your pastor information that the bishop can use in your letter of recommendation: your academic standing, level of education, involvement with the diocese, etc. That information will likely constitute the letter that the bishop writes - and if you can add in awesome things that give you instant Catholic Street Cred, then do that! If, for example, you run a discussion group on Humanae Vitae, Theology of the Body, or started a local chapter of the Lepanto League, etc., that's the right sort of stuff to send - in an email/letter - to your pastor.

Once you've placed a request with your pastor, get in touch with your bishop or his secretary. Let him know the pastor's recommendation is coming and that you are sending him (the bishop) your declarations of sustenance and a self-addressed and stamped envelope. So - your bishop gets your declarations of sustenance (and, I'd suggest, supporting documentation to show your finances are as you state them), your pastor's recommendation, and your return envelope. That makes it *very easy* for him to compose a letter of recommendation, sign everything, and send everything back in a timely manner.

Now - get the bishop's signature verified by the Apostolic Nuncio. That sounds like a scary process (at least, it did to me), but it's really simple and quick. I found the address for the Nuncio here. You don't need to send any supporting documents (though you can), but you do need to send a return envelope with postage and an explanatory letter stating your intentions, which signatures need to be verified and where. Remember: MAKE THIS SIMPLE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE FOR OTHERS. Don't force people to do the work - do it for them, and they will sweetly send it back to you, delighted and charmed. I even got a nice little card thing with the "compliments of the Apostolic Nuncio" - kawaiiiii!

Next, send letter of recommendation, declaration of sustenance, a copy of your passport (make sure it's legible, because if a university accepts you they send a letter with your passport number in it that you need to get a study visa), original study transcripts, etc., etc. DO send all documents before August, 'cause, you know, Italians take their vacations quite seriously and they need to send you a letter of acceptance. DO get in touch with the dean of the department you're trying to study in - introduce yourself, let him know the documents are on the way, etc.

Ok. Here's the tough part - the study visa. Dun dun duuuun.

Assuming the University sent you a letter (not a fax - a letter) of acceptance, in order to get a study visa (at the SF Consulate), you need**:

your driver's license

a copy of your driver's license

your passport

a copy of your passport

your visa application (available here) -- !!!! with a passport sized photo glued in the upper-right corner of the app

a copy of your passport

affidavit of health insurance (I bought mine here)

copy of affidavit of health insurance (they take the original, so it's best to have a copy for your own records)

bank statements indicating you have not less than $900/month for your planned length of stay***

signed letters, on letterhead, from your financial institutions stating the amount you have in your account (this is just bureaucracy - I totally had these signed letters and the consulate-worker simply discarded them!)

copy of letters (some consulates will also ask for these)

your declaration of sustenance****

a letter from your employer (if employed) stating you're making monies (if you are) -- they liked this at the Italian consulate, 'cause it showed I was serious and had an income

original letter of acceptance from your university

copy of letter of acceptance

airplane reservations *to* Italy (it's not necessary to have roundtrip reservations)

the letter of invitation from your landlord (keep a copy for yourself)

a copy of your landlord's national id

Arrange *everything* in the order they ask for (you will, hopefully, see directions for the correct ordering of documents pasted on the consulate building), be sure you have copies of *everything*, and, if you want the consulate to mail your passport back to you, bring a self-addressed and stamped envelope. If you are missing one document, the consulate will turn you away. If your documents are out of order, they will tell you to put them in order before coming back to the window (if your consulate doesn't take appointments) and it's a toss-up as to whether they'll let you jump to the head of the line or tell you to wait at the back. DON'T provide too many documents (for example, copies of your affidavit of health insurance, plane reservations, etc., but have them handy, in case, because the consulate has the right to demand more documents than they ask for on their website) because the people working at the consulate have to go through lots of documents in a very short time and it irritates them to have to sift through stuff for you. DO be exceedingly polite. DON'T arrive at the consulate late if your consulate does not give appointments. DO make sure the dates on your financial documents are clearly visible and recent.

Hopefully, the consulate workers will like you and accept your application for a visa and everything will be smooth sailing for you! If not, try again, and again, and again.

This is information based off of my own recent experience as of 2009 - my experience was a horrible, horrible one, but I got it done in 8 months. Apparently, the norm for completing this process is more like 12 to 18 months.

*Your bishop may not need this. Mine did, however, request a recommendation from my pastor so if you want to speed things up, this can help.
** Check with your local consulate - the documents required VARY from consulate to consulate.
*** Again, this varies from consulate to consulate.
**** My consulate threw this out, along with the letters from my financial institutions. "What IS this!?!?!" the consulate worker asked. Le sigh. But it's best to bring, just in case, because some consulates do like 'em, maybe.

2009-07-30T17:24:00.000+02:00

"It's like somebody cracked open Etsy and this fell out," my brother-in-law posted to his Facebook wall.

Too true.

I learned a new proverb! It goes: "donne pelose donne virtuose." This translates to "Hairy women (implicit "=") virtuous women. It's important to pronounce it "donnE pelosE," for loose pronunciation could render it "Donna Pelosi, donna virtuose," which, considering the career path of Nancy Pelosi, might cause some confusion to Catholics fluent in Italian and American Politics.

A word to the unlearned: if you're trying to learn Italian, *think Canadian*. The "e" sound similar to the Canadian "Eeeeeh you hoser," only with less exaggeration. Naturally, this similarity constantly tempts me, in class, to exploit this wonderful similitude.

But I shall behave.

Catholics are Attacking

2009-07-21T01:35:00.000+02:00

Every Catholic should know and love the great song that is "The Catholics are Attacking" by Pop-O-Pies (scroll down for link to streaming audio).

It is to die for.

Medium: Comics, Web

2009-07-15T02:50:00.000+02:00

Everywhere I go, I'm asked if I think the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a best seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.
-Flannery O'Connor

For webcomics I follow the principle: if the first 10 pages don't snag the imagination, do thou it eschew. Many are the webcomics I've eschewed. You can tell a lot about a comic in the first 10 pages. Is the heroine a princess from a war-wracked planet, who was hidden on earth during infancy and is ignorant of her lineage? Check. Throw away. Is the hero a fumbling knight/hero who has yet to soar to his true potential but is dogged by a bazillion girls with skillz and a sarcastic exterior but a warm chocolaty center? Check. Throw it away. OMG. IS IT UTTERLY KAWAAAAAIIIIII!?!?!?!?! Or does it involve a humble girl suddenly befriended by POWERFUL BEINGS?!?!?! Maybe even...ALIENS!?!?! Caught in a LIFE OR DEATH STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL!!?!?!!?

Throw. Away. Sheesh.

It's sad, but there are about 3-20 good webcomics per 200 bad ones (and by "bad" I don't mean the work of an immature artist/writer, but bad in terms of plot and character - XKCD has stick-figures, but it's still a good comic) and finding the good ones can be depressing. So, I've done the job for you!

Here are some webcomics worth checking out:

Dr. McNinja - pure awesome.
Hark! A Vagrant! - also pure awesome. With history.
Lackadaisy Cats - truly brilliant.
Star Drop - also truly brilliant
Girl Genius - steampunk, girl-genius, etc.

2009-06-24T01:48:00.000+02:00

Is it just me who gets the abbreviations OFM and OMF mixed up, occasionally?

HARDCORE

2009-06-13T16:29:00.000+02:00

Blooooaarrrrgghhhh!

I'm not ignoring my blog - no.

I AM working 25+ hours a week and taking a language intensive (the equivalent of two years of language in 10 weeks) at Cal.

INTENSE!

Now (7:30am on a Saturday) I shall wake up an prepare for: choir, Mass, a 90lb pig-roast, homework, and a dance!

La la la.

-D

P.s. I think people should be saner and have more Irish accents.

Jesu, rex admirabilis.

2009-06-04T00:04:00.000+02:00

Jesu, rex admirabilis
et triumphator nobilis,
dulcedo ineffabilis,
totus desiderabilis,

mane nobiscum, Domine,
et nos illustra lumine,
pulsa mentis caligine,
mundum reple ducedine.

Jesus, wondrous king
and noble conqueror,
ineffable delight,
wholly to be desired,

remain with us, Lord,
dispel the darkness of our minds
and enlighten us with your light,
fill the world with your sweetness.
(Trans. by Philip Ford)

I'm the Miyazaki Type

2009-06-02T17:52:00.000+02:00

This experience be from a bit back - but I just saw that I never published it. Oops.

While purchasing a sci-fi novel (by John C. Wright), I had a rather odd exchange with the checker - an Asian fellow, long-hair (need I say it was black?), à la hippie. Without any preliminary pleasantries (such as "Hi! I can check you out here.") he opened abruptly with:

Him: Have you watched any Miyazaki films?
Me: Yes. (???)
Him: Howl's Moving Castle?
Me: Yeeeeah - my family was into Miyazaki before his works became widely available in the US.
Him (almost severely): You're the type that would enjoy it.
Me: ... er.
Him: *silence*

Is being the Miyazaki-type akin to being "that-guy"? You know, that guy? Is there a social stigma associated with Miyazaki? Waaah!

In other news - I have a new Masshat! It is black and fetching. Now I can totally go to OF Masses that aren't celebrated according to the GIRM and SHOW THEM WHO'S PIOUS!

On Seducement During Dinner

2009-05-30T17:35:00.000+02:00

From Tom Jones:

'Say then, ye Graces! you that inhabit the heavenly mansions of Seraphina's countenance; for you are truly divine, are always in her presence, and well know all the arts of charming; say what were the weapons now used to captivate the heart of Mr. Jones.'

'First, from two lovely blue eyes, whose bright orbs flashed lightning at their discharge, flew forth two pointed ogles; but happily for our heroe, hit only a vast piece of beef which he was then conveying into his plate, and harmless spent their force. The fair warrior perceived their miscarriage, and immediately from her fair bosom drew forth a deadly sigh. A sigh which none could have heard unmoved, and which was sufficient at once to have swept off a dozen beaus; so soft, so sweet, so tender, that the insinuating air must have found its subtle way to the heart of our heroe, had it not luckily been driven from his ears by the coarse bubbling of some bottled ale, which at that time he was pouring forth. Many other weapons did she assay; but the god of eating (if there be any such deity, for I do not confidently assert it) preserved his votary; or perhaps it may not me dignus vindice nodus, and the present security of Jones may be accounted for by natural means; for as love frequently preserves from attacks of hunger, so may hunger possibly, in some cases, defend us against love.'

Let's Get Metaphysical

2009-05-29T22:21:00.001+02:00

Ever wondered...exactly how to approach that shy - but absolutely gorgeous - philosophy major? Get metaphysical with them!

1. Has anyone ever told you you're a supernatural existential?
2. Babe, I'd break the law of non-contradiction for you.
3. You must be transcendental because you don't belong to any category.
4. Can I participate in your being?
5. You should be tired. You've been running through my conceptual apparatus as a cognitional being all day!
6. Honey, can I be the efficient cause of your happiness?
7. My web of intelligibility sure did a number on you!
8. Baby, can I proposition you, that is join our terms together by means of a copula?

Disclaimer: These are not of my doing - mah friends came up with these and I preserved them for posterity.

Satire

2009-05-28T21:51:00.000+02:00

As a Rodevacantist, I echo William Shatner's statement that "Gene Rodenberry created the Star Trek of the ages," and that any change is obviously the result of directors and writers who no longer have the inspiration and guidance of the Rodenberry spirit. Any change is inorganic. All change is inorganic. This Novus Trek is an abomination and I - and those few who have not drunk the Targ-aid - will show you JUST WHY THIS IS SO.

After the death of Gene Rodenberry, Jews, Freemasons, Protestants, and Communists influenced the creation of the abomination "Star Trek XI." Many people welcomed this "New" Star Trek, saying it was more "accessible" to non-Geeks and encouraged a spirit of dialogue. Puh-lease. The beauty of Star Trek lies in its mystery and not in its comprehensibility. Why else do you think Chancellor Gorkon, in Star Trek VI, said "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon"? Do you understand Klingon? No. Do *I*? No! Ergo - mystery. QED.

And if you WANT to understand Star Trek, you're WRONG to want that - and I bet you're a bad mother/father, too, if not a closet homosexual.

So I - and a few others who keep the Trek Tradition - maintain that this new formulation of Star Trek differs so drastically from the Star Trek of Gene Rodenberry as to be positively harmful to the Trekkie or Trekker. Was this New Trek an organic development? No! It was a shocking hermeneutic of discontinuity: a rupture with all we held dear, a NEW TREK. Where are the transporter beaming noises of old? Why does Scotty have a real Glasgow accent, rather than his heavy fake Scottish brogue? Why does Spock show so much emotion in Star Trek XI? Why is there no sacrificial aspect? Why do you see "Trekkies" attending New Trek in SHORTS - without any respect for the Mysterium of Star Trek?

Shocking, isn't it? Maybe those "phaser smells and bells" might not seem too important to you - or maybe the "Captain's Log, Stardate..." before the episode don't seem "necessary" - but without those things, is it really...Star Trek? Can it really...engage us?

That is the question many Trekkies have had to ask themselves.

When the Novus Disorder Star Trek was released, many Trekkies were bewildered by the changes. Hollywood executives (again, Jews) ruthlessly stripped old traditions of their meaning and implemented radical innovations. You see, JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are secretly working to undermine the teachings of the one, true, Gene Rodenberry. Gene Rodenberry was sublimely dedicated to the preservation of traditions: the clichéd scenes, the utilization of exotic and scantily clad women, the Prime Directive, etc. But Novus Ordo Trekkies believe in "religious freedom." Its women wear pants and go to the "Academy" - they even enter into "careers" and display initiative! In the Traditional Star Trek, you never saw a respectable Star Fleet Woman without an impossibly short miniskirt, unless she were in another impossibly revealing costume, and the women always assumed highly feminine and monotonous roles! Degeneration of society, anyone?

Many Trekkies left - disillusioned. Trekkie clubs which used to be packed are now...empty. Maybe those Trekkies had undergone the horror of seeing Clown-Star-Trek. We may never know just how many were lost. Thankfully, I am a Rodevacantist. I am not lost.

But welcome to the Novus Ordo Star Trek! A place where "No One," and not "No Man," has gone before.

And so what if the body of science fiction authors have hailed this Novus Ordo Star Trek as a legitimate and valid part of the Star Trek Legacy? Do you think the authority to interpret what is and is not the Star Trek legacy lies with *them*? On the contrary, it lies with Traditional Star Trek fans. If we don't like it, it is not a part of Tradition (with a CAPITAL T).

A reader, alive to this abomination, pointed out the following:

As you can see from the pictures, True Nimoy has heavily hooded small eyes, a narrow nose, and small earlobes.

Imposter "Nimoy" has wide eyes that appear not to have a hooded appearance, a large, drooping nose, and large earlobes.

Quote from Imposter "Nimoy":
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a 'Star Trek' fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."

Quote from True Nimoy:
"It was a nothing role with just a few lines for Spock to 'pass the torch' to the new cast. I wasn't interested in that... as far as I was concerned, Spock had a grand exit in 'Star Trek VI' and I didn't want to disrespect that in any way." (on being invited to appear in 'Star Trek, Generations'. True Nimoy, obviously, would not appear in NewTrek.)

I'd like to end by asking: what about the third secret of the Andorian Peace Treaty that was never released, eh?

Speaking of Which.

2009-05-24T00:33:00.000+02:00

Since it was just the feast of St. Athanasius, I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes of his, in a letter to Marcellinus on the Psalms:

...Holy Scripture is not designed to tickle the aesthetic palate, and it is rather for the soul's own profit that the Psalms are sung. This is so chiefly for two reasons. In the first place, it is fitting that the sacred writings should praise God in poetry as well as prose, because the freer, less restricted form of verse, in which the Psalms together with the Canticles and Odes, are cast, ensures that by them men should express their love to God with all the strength and power they possess. And, secondly, the reason lies in the unifying effect which chanting the Psalms has upon the singer. For to sing the Psalms demands such concentration of a man's whole being on them that, in doing it, his usual disharmony of mind and corresponding bodily confusion is resolved, just as the notes of several flutes are brought by harmony to one effect; and he is thus no longer to be found thinking good and doing evil, as Pilate did when, though saying "I find no cause of death in Him," he yet allowed the Jews to have their way; nor desiring evil though unable to achieve it, as did the elders in their sin against Susanna - or, for that matter, as does any man who abstains from one sin and yet desires another every bit as bad. And it is in order that the melody may thus express our inner spiritual harmony, just as the words voice our thoughts, that the Lord Himself has ordained that the Psalms are to be sung and recited to a chant...those who do sing as I have indicated, so that the melody of the words springs naturally from the rhythm of the soul and her own union with the Spirit, they sing with the tongue and with the understanding also, and greatly benefit not themselves alone but also those who want to listen to them."

I really love the philosophy and theology behind art - and, being in a choir, really appreciate Athanasius' take on the relation between the soul and the song.

Who Will Save Your Soul?

2009-05-24T00:04:00.000+02:00

If you've ever read Tom Jones by Henry Fielding, you instantly grock that the author truly loves the character of his excessively virile, flawed, and young protagonist: Tom Jones. Tom commits many shocking indiscretions and easily gets into bed with women whilst being deeply devoted to another who is the paragon of virtue, delicacy, and beauty. The author, anticipating our censure, makes a plea for Tom: he's flawed, yes, but he is also a man of good-will, capable of appreciating, striving for, and attaining virtue. Don't, Fielding begs, conflate *a* defining moment of a life - or even several "a"s - with "the" defining moment of our life. That is, with the moment of death. Most people habitually commit sins - some quite serious ones - and most people would not like to be judged solely by the worst sin they committed or by what the world sees and makes of that sin.

And yet, many people, in a fit of righteousness, use one defining moment/act as the defining moment/act of that person's life - on both a social and a moral level - when it comes to transgressions. The internet is rather devilishly misused to work that righteousness up to an unreflective frenzy (see the Christopher West eruption, for example). All one seems to hear about - even on Catholic blogs - is SCANDAL, SCANDAL, SCANDAL! Then follows the public hue and cry. Outrage! Shock!

Such a state of existence can be useful, if and when an object/act merits such a strong response, but it seems that when everyone is in such a state of hyper-agitation it is dangerously easy to jump from a moment to the moment, or to too hastily jump from a moderate to a nuclear sort of option (which isn't to say I dislike using nuclear options - in Sid Mier's Civ II, I often enabled the cheats and did just that. So long, Mongol hordes!).

Shame - or the idea of shame - is used to make people behave. It works, sometimes. When a radio dj messes up, or embarrassing pictures of a beauty queen emerge, or news of a cheating politician gets about, the common response of the offender - after the public has got wind of the offense - is to say: I am sorry - I regret what I did. Is this a success? Well, as Athanasius points out, one gets a very definite sense that they are not sorry for the act but that they are sorry they got caught and they regret the effect it will have on their career.

And why? What that radio dj said might be objectively really shocking. He will be remembered and judged in the minds of many people as 'that person who said X.." But there floats about an Ayer-like conception of good and evil which, roughly, equates "good" and "bad" with purely personal-value-driven-expressive-response. So saying "X is bad" equates to "@#%$^^ X!!!" These expressive statements cannot - *cannot* - be good or bad and certainly cannot be universal (de gustibus...).

Naturally, this touches upon the question of what it means to be human. If good and evil are driven by personal values, then my good is determined solely by myself - or by an other's utilization of myself for their own value-driven-conception of goodness (i.e. I might be used as a slave - I'd be useful then, and valued as such). A being's goodness, and a being's acts, are not intrinsically/objectively good or evil. Therefore, we are not capable of virtue or vice, of redemption or damnation, of repentance.

That doesn't jive with reality, and yet - or maybe "and so" - there is this morbid urge to damn those who gain notoriety by stepping outside of arbitrary demarcations (formally endorsed by law) determined by personal values. Damn the undamnable? Shame the shameless? Why? It seems like a form of mutilated hope for redemption. Saying something matters is better to say that nothing matters - a very tenuous grip on reality is held. And if someone else is being damned then at least I'm not, because I didn't do that.

I entirely agree with Athanasius that people who are shocked (along with those who are not) by the bad behavior of those in the public sphere have created the culture in which that behavior can thrive. However, I place a different interpretation on the use of shame: it's not really shame that moves a politician to express regret -- it's fear. When motivated by shame, it is because there is something that we are *ashamed of*: we recognize our acts/words as shameful. But there is an attempt going on to shame that politician (because we don't want to say that nothing matters) and it is an attempt that really finds no corresponding notion of redemption: of Christ.

And that really isn't very pleasant. Without Christ at the center of the universe, history, reality (I paraphrase the beginning words of Pope John Paul the Great's first encyclical), how can we look at another human being and say they are capable of repentance? How can we look at them and say "you are good," if we cannot say that their being is good because it is created in the image and likeness of God?

To some extent, Henry Fielding is not making a plea solely for Tom Jones, but for all of humanity - saying that we are all capable of being redeemed because we are all Tom Jones to a certain extent.

I close with a quote from Graham Greene (from The End of the Affair - the speaker is in a Church):

I was trying to escape from the human body and all it needed. I thought I could believe in some kind of God that bore no relation to ourselves, something vague, amorphous, cosmic, to which I had promised something and which had given me something in return - stretching out of the vague into the concrete human life, like a powerful vapour - I would escape myself forever...I had done so much injury with this body. How could I want to preserve any of it for eternity, and suddenly I remembered a phrase of Richard's - about human beings inventing doctrines to satisfy their desires, and I thought how wrong he is. If I were to invent a doctrine it would be that the body was never born again, that it rotted with last year's vermin...Then I began to want my body that I hated, but only because it could love that scar. We can love with our minds, but can we love only with our minds? Love extends itself all the time, so that we can even love with our senseless nails: we love even with our clothes, so that a sleeve can find a sleeve.

If you have a copy of the End of the Affair, I highly recommend finding this passage and reading it in its entirety - Greene is a profound writer.

On the Philosophy of Dance

2009-04-28T20:24:00.001+02:00

Last Tuesday, I gave a lecture at _____ on the philosophy of dance. This post expands on the ideas expressed there. Language Advisory – I use the word “ass” multiple times. Here goes!

* * *

Something is better than nothing. Most people accept this simple fact (except for those few silly-bunnies who say - "well, supposing *I* don't think that," which, essentially, is questioning the goodness of their own existence). From this it follows that you and I are better than nothing, and that the entire cosmos is, at least in some sense, better than nothing. Or, in other words, it's all good ("it" being "existence"), or at least it's all better than nothing—because it is something.

Why does that matter?

A number of people assert that social dancing makes them feel good. They retire to their cozy beds at 2am in the morning, sometimes after quaffing copious amounts of water (or a martini, in my case - be classy!), feeling oddly and transiently validated. There *is* the fact that exercise produces endorphins which make for good moods - but that doesn't explain the feeling of rejection and invalidation when you’re turned down for a dance for reasons other than injury, fatigue, or simply being otherwise engaged. What bites is not that someone didn’t want to dance but that someone did not want to dance *with you*. Ouch. That could be due to many reasons - you might have forgotten to brush your teeth after eating a baguette positively dripping with baked garlic and brie (able to drop a person at twenty yards!). Or it might just be… you. Ooo. What a terrifying thought!

That reminds me of a mortifying experience in Kindergarten – we were playing the Farmer in the Dell. Oh how excited I was! This was a new, fun game! The people who were picked were assigned a special status – so cool – and of course I’d be picked! … Naturally, I was the cheese. The sky darkened, my classmates’ fingers became hideously elongated as they pointed at the cheese in the corner which they cavorted around as they sang the dirge “the cheese stands alone.” “The Cheese Stands Alone” – what a frightful thing! Even my friends, who I had –er- empowered against the school bully by teaching them to mock her block structures, hadn’t picked me!

Was I not pretty enough? …

Social dance, I’d posit, provokes an opposite of that feeling of isolation and abandonment. It does not make us feel good simply because exercise produces endorphins but because it is a fundamentally life-affirming recreation/art: one must affirm, even if only subconsciously, not only the existence of another person, but the goodness of that other person’s existence, and not in a general and disembodied sense but you, body and soul or mind and body (and it seems to me that “mind” is understood in much the same way that a soul is).

Nietzsche once wrote, "To have joy in anything, one must approve everything." In a sense, that's quite true. In order to take joy in something you must approve of its existence - and not just its existence, but (now I'll sound like Heidegger) the totality/universality of existence. A human being does not exist in a void. There are *so many* causes/pre-conditions/etc. that go into a person being there before you, and the reason for those causes span space, time, and even transcend them. Sure, a being may exist in imperfect circumstances, but that does not mean that their being is not good or that the world they exist in and which makes possible their existence is not good. In spite of any adverse circumstances we find ourselves in, existence is good.

We don't often think of these things when we look at another human being. But that doesn't mean they're not there. Dancing is a way of affirming and delighting in the goodness of being. I have to be and you have to be before we can dance and create beauty. I have to – even subconsciously – say it is better for me to dance with *you* than for me to not dance with you (and vice versa). We make these affirmations or denials on a prosaic level everyday – that it is better to eat healthy food than unhealthy food; that it is better to go to work than to not go to work, etc. Why eat healthy food if it isn’t good for you? Why go to work if not going to work is just as fine? Why dance – which serves no purpose, really – unless it is better to create beauty?

The dancer does not dance "for the sake of” some other purpose, at least, not when he has beauty as the object of the dance which can elevate dance to the level of a fine art as opposed to a recreation or technique. And I am not saying that dance is an art because it is beautiful – many things are beautiful – but that dance has beauty as its object: beauty for the sake of beauty. That is why the person who dances "in order to be admired on the dance floor and get grrls" may certainly be called a Bad Dancer. He has taken an art and subverted it for other purposes. What a nasty man!

Social dancing, which involves two or more people, is, therefore, the co-creation of beauty. A fleeting relationship is struck up on the dance-floor with other dancers and that relationship is intimate, trusting, and obliging - even self-effacing. Intimate, at least in swing-dancing, because it is typically a relationship between two people. Trusting because no one *knows* what a lead or follow will do but each assumes the other will act with good will and not abuse their trust by dropping the follow or making the lead look like an ass and other such things. Obliging and self-effacing because the good dancer seeks harmony and unity – even when a partner is given space to do their own thing, it is done within the context of the partnership of the dance: the lead or the follow have to open up/relinquish that space. In many respects, a social dance has the same cadences and rhythms that a good conversation has – you give people space to have their say, you expand on themes, you pun, you play, but not at the expense of the other person. If you set yourself up in opposition to your partner, the resulting effect in dance is akin to a choir that has many strident singers trying to out-do one another. Horrid!

Speaking of social mores in conversation – show me an anarchist and I’ll show you a bad dancer. Dancing is a creation of a beauty that comes about through order. Dancing is not simply spasming across the floor – one is conforming/ordering movements to a pattern in one’s mind, much like a painter attempts to conform the image he puts to canvas to an idea within his mind. Swing-dancing makes use of patterns. There is the Swing-Out, the Charleston, the Scissor Kicks, the Shorty-George, &c. We are not constrained by these patterns in the sense that they impinge upon our freedom of movement - they're more like building blocks, or analogous to musical notation within a song that tell us how to order sound. Only, instead of an arrangement of sound you have an arrangement of movement (usually to sound). Yet we do not all express these patterns in the same way.

The instrument or material of dance is the body, just as a sculptor has his marble and the musician his violin. Each body has unique physical capabilities and limitations…Perhaps one has sculpted abs! Each person, then, will order the movement of their body in similar but distinct ways when following a pattern. Sometimes we cannot order our movements as we wish because we do not have the right physique, do not know the pattern, or haven’t practiced moving our body in that way for long enough. To learn how to order movement requires practice. Practice sometimes entail bodily injury either because we are unaccustomed to perform certain movements or…for other reasons. F’r’instance: I was practicing my Scissor Kicks, yesterday, when my brother walked in and told me it wasn’t the 30’s or 40’s anymore and took up a semi-Kung-Fu stance. I promptly and playfully kicked him in the shin. He retaliated by socking me in the head. That is the price I pay for practicing.

Because dancing consists in an imposition of forms upon our natural movements, we are also limited by our imagination, by how we think. Some follows just don’t think to do a Shorty-George when doing an underarm-turn. I know *I* never thought of that before someone demonstrated it. Then again, some people’s imaginations have stagnated or they don’t *think* in good ways – naturally, their dance reflects that.

Further, the personality and moods we have determine the expression of these patterns or which patterns we express. If I'm feeling playful, I'll express that in my dance. The Charleston can be done seriously. It can be done poorly. It can be done playfully. The observer can note the differences in these patterns by judging not just the technical execution, but the smaller details: where the hands are, the expression on the faces of the dancer, the synchronization of the move to the music, etc.

In social dancing, tall people dance with short people. Short people dance with short people. People with doctorates dance with plumbers. The co-creation of beauty through the ordering of movement contains an infinite number of beautiful possibilities

So far, I’ve said: dancing has beauty as its object and that beauty comes through a being’s ordering of natural movements. The ordering of one’s movements is constrained by the physical capabilities of the body which is the material of the dance and of the mind which orders the movement. Dancing is, also, fundamentally, a delighting in existence – in life, which is partly why we feel good when we dance. I have not said that all dances performed by people constitute a fine art, but that dancing can be elevated to a fine art (which I have not defined here but left rather vague) when it has beauty as its object and that it contains a number of the aspects mentioned above.

It is interesting to see that dance is, historically, part of a vast number of religious rituals, spans nations, and is linked in art or literature to something sacred or divine, to an affirmation of existence in some form or other. The great Italian poet Dante describes those in heaven as dancing – but there is no dancing in the Inferno, which is reserved for those who reject goodness, though there are people with hands linked who whirl across hot sands so as to avoid pain.

These are very preliminary thoughts on the philosophy of dance. I have relied on a very short chapter written by the French Philosopher Etienne Gilson for much of what I have written – he said what I said first, though differently. And Gilson, I think, gets certain things wrong in his analysis of dance because he implies, at one point, that dance often has as its object self-perfection, which I don’t agree with at all.

In any case, please don’t hurt me because of the disjointedness and crude reasoning!

2009-04-04T01:19:00.000+02:00

Although this is a terribly wicked thing for me to think, given that such ladies are probably quite pious, more devoted to the Church, and holier than I: there should be a society for the prevention of old Church women who can't sing acting as the lead singers/cantors at Mass.

All ye in favor say "aye!"

It is a difficult and delicate thing, for some of these women were good singers and have given abundantly of their time and self to the Church. But...there comes a point at which it's not really fitting for them to continue, where the torch should be passed on.

'ist saying, is all.

2009-04-03T23:49:00.000+02:00

Oh my good dear people,

I have been neglecting you - mea maxima culpa!

But you see, several things occurred that distracted me.

On the negative side, Oxford declined to accept me (on the basis of my grades, I do believe, which weren't perfect. But I maintain that grading is what you do to meat...or eggs). The evening I was rejected found me wielding a large knife. Chop! Chop! CHOP! I was making cheddar cheese soup for the fambly. My eyes were streaming (onions) and I was holding a beer because I'd lifted the self-imposed beer fast for a day. A friend wandered in and saw the beer, the tears, but not the onions. Thinking I was going off the deep-end, he drew me aside and delivered a gentle caution on my state. That was all sorted out eventually, however - don't worry! I'm fine and have a revenge plan - years from now, when I'm a glamorous and internationally renowned philosopher, when Oxford asks me to lecture &c., I shall, with lofty visage, shun them. That's right. They'll be SHUNNED!

HAH! Take THAT Oxford! (Le sigh...)

On the plus side, I went skiing gambling out-of-town and won Two Whole Dollars (which I promptly lent to a destitute sister). I Am A Winnah!

On the miscellanous side: I found this quote on Fr. Z's blog and thought it Quite Good:

I don’t know Father. From a historical stand point “terrible twos” might be better than adolescence.

I need some cheese to go with all this whine in the combox. I’m not saying the older form isn’t beautiful and I am fully aware that much was lost in the transition. But come on people, grow up some. ‘All the blame is with this new mass’ ‘Paul VI betrayed us all’ ‘the N.O. is the smoke of Satan’ ‘Judge by the fruits, see (insert favorite liturgical abuse canard here)’.

Look, as someone who grew up knowing only the Ordinary Form, this gets old fast. Was it boring and bland most of the time, yes. Do I wish that we could’ve had a sense of continuity and beauty, yes. Did I turn into some religiously indifferent modernist, hell no. And most of the catholics I know didn’t have that happen either. (And if we want to get into an argument about fruits, the Ordinary Form and the Second Vatican Council were fruits of the TLM! )

Strictest adherence to rubrics is not enough. Perfect memorization of catechisms is not enough. Incense, beautiful vestments, gorgeous churches, and trained scholae are not enough. If it were, then we wouldn’t have had anything changed. The people of the church are imperfect, as such we are always in need of reform (see St. Benedict, St. Francis, St. Gregory the Great, etc…) And because the people are imperfect, the reforms are often imperfect. So we need to keep working at them. There is a lot that was abandoned that needs to be remembered and relearned, but that is par for the course in history.

Seriously, stop this mindless bashing of the Ordinary Form. There are many of us who grew up with it and are glad to see the changes in translation which better reflect the ancient Latin prayers, the resurgence of chant, and the general increased beauty of the Mass that comes from rediscovering and using our glorious patrimony. But the bitterness poisons these efforts. Those who do not understand why these things are important hear things like “Now here is an abortion i would have supported 40 years ago” and are completely turned off to the ideas of tradition.

St. Padre Pio said it is better to bear an injustice than to cause one. Widening the divisions with bitter rhetoric only causes a bigger injustice to the Body of Christ.

Baron Von Korf

Props to you, sir! I hope I am not still one of those bitter rhetoricians. I think I was, at one point (only in the opposite direction), but got better. Bitterness provokes bitterness. Light begets light. Love one another, y'all's!

Don't Worry, Kids!

2009-02-21T00:30:00.000+01:00

I'm just updating ze look.

Don Camillo & The Procession

2009-02-20T17:44:00.000+01:00

Why My Knickers Knot

2009-02-18T21:51:00.000+01:00

The question has been posed: "Is it reasonable to ask the SSPX to accept *only* VII explicitly, and not the other councils of the Church? Hmm? Hmm?"

Well...

Yes.

The Second Vatican Council is - on their official website - contrasted with authentic Catholic teaching.

Further, I quote from that same page:

Our position must be:...we refuse ...to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. (Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, APPENDIX I)

I find it rather unsettling that this question is even being asked. When an injustice is done, an act of reparation must be made. The SSPX states publicly that they reject the Second Vatican Council. Hence, it is not unreasonable to ask that corresponding public statements should be made to the effect that they - the SSPX - acknowledge and accept the Second Vatican Council as an authentic expression of Catholic Tradition - not as a sort of "nyah nyah! IN UR FACE!" humiliation, but as an act of justice.

It is not sufficient amends to say: "I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church...and all things implicit therein" if, in reality, you explicitly reject the teachings of the Catholic Church as promulgated by the Second Vatican Council and all that came from it - which teaching has been handed on by five successive pontiffs and the bishops teaching in communion with them. No amends would, in fact, be made were these two positions held simultaneously.

The judgment of the Church concerning the deposit of faith takes precedence over the private judgment of an individual, or even of groups of individuals. The judgment of the Church concerning the interpretation of expressions of Tradition is given by the reigning pontiff and those bishops teaching in communion with him. The assistance of the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ in the safeguarding of this deposit (and revelation in general, in both Scripture and Tradition) and the subsequent deepening of our understanding of it and its transmission (the Indefectibility of the Church). Hence, we have it on best authority that the teaching of the Second Vatican Council is authentic, good, and true because of that totality/unity. As such, our response should be a warm reception of its teachings as being a continuation of the Tradition of the Church - or, if not a warm reception, then we are at least obligated to maintain a docile obedience and refrain from public statements that detract from said council since it comes from a legitimate Authority above whom there is no other authority.

I know that the SSPX do not consider the Second Vatican Council to be part of the Magisterium of the Church because they judge it to be a break with Tradition - but such a judgment is outside an individual's purview.

So, the insistence on the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council is motivated, I think, primarily by the sense that if you reject the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council, then you are effectively rejecting the binding power of the Magisterium of the Church, and really and truly rejecting the Church in her totality. As we so often hear, you cannot be a faithful Catholic and pick and choose what you believe.

I'm not trying to be hard on "Traditionalists" (I consider myself a real Traditionalist in the sense that I am Catholic), nor am I trying to strike a sour note.

But one should not flippantly dismiss, however, the real and deep concerns over the implications that such an affirmation, qualified affirmation, or rejection of the Second Vatican Council holds regarding the unity and indefectibility of the Church.

The Church is one. The Church is holy. The Church is catholic. The Church is apostolic. This is the Church. This is our Faith. We are proud to profess it.

Addendum: An analogy occurs to me (and it may be faulty) - the Church's teaching against contraception has not been promulgated as an infallible dogma, ne? But it is infallible by virtue of the nature of human beings and the marital act. So, if group were to publicly *deny* this teaching and then state that they believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church and all things therein, we would be right to say "uh. Wait - you don't believe in this, and it is part of the Magisterium, so you have to recant."

Addendum II: I've noticed an equivocation going on between "an individual" and "a group." A group that makes an official statement is different from an individual in a public setting making a statement.

TRADITION!

2009-02-17T03:04:00.000+01:00

Wot is it?

Discuss!

(Or leave my comment box sad and empty...**sniff** )

Addendum of Something Related:

Something to Keep in Mind: Ubi Caritas et Amor, Deus Ibi Est.

2009-02-16T18:14:00.000+01:00

"WHERE charity and love are, God is there.
As we are gathered into one body,
Beware, lest we be divided in mind.
Let evil impulses stop, let controversy cease,
And may Christ our God be in our midst."
Source

Never Knew

2009-02-11T16:41:00.000+01:00

It's a funny article because they forgot Galileo!

C'mon, guys - was it Galileo or Darwin who invented science?

Woe

2009-02-04T19:07:00.001+01:00

There is a surfeit of bad news running around these days - and I don't want to write about it because it's simply depressing and makes me melancholy.

Instead: Puppies!

And food for thought.

Tee Hee!

2009-01-24T05:01:00.001+01:00

I'm propping up some books with Kant's Transcendental Idealism...

The Tale of Despereaux

2009-01-16T23:06:00.000+01:00

Egggghhh! Aggggh!! This film was creepy. Creeeeeepy.

I know Decent Films and American Papist gave it good reviews.

But, me? Paragon of good taste in movies? D- or even an F.

Why? Well - personal culpability is removed from the characters in this film, and I'm with Aristotle when he said (and I paraphrase) that we praise or blame men because we believe them to be responsible for their actions. Eliminate the blame, you eliminate the praise as well.

In our post-modern society, there is a fascination with the nature versus nurture question. Are we slaves of our genes? Of society? Of what we eat for breakfast? An interesting dynamic plays out in this film - everyone "knows" that, by nature, rats are X. But the film suggests that their nature is only X because that is what they have been nurtured to be: they are a product of their environment. Likewise with other main characters who do wicked things.

Hence, evil actions are the result of something hurtful in an environment that is the propels the characters to a hurtful (I use the term the movie uses) course of action. The king hurts the people, land, and animals. So what's a hurting animal to do but hurt others? It's not really their fault, afterall! And that creepy deranged maidservant who betrays the princess and locks her away in a dungeon? Well! The princess had - unintentionally - hurt her feelings. Whew. Glad those actions were explained and great to know that the maidservant was really good on the inside! That maidservant had me worried when she was menacing the princess with a butcher's knife! She was just hurting, you know.

For what it's worth: there is an element of truth in all this - actual sin can be traced back to original sin. But that doesn't mitigate our culpability. We don't sin because we were sinned against - we sin because...well...we want to (but not the good kind of nature-driven want).

But in the end, there are no bad guys. There are just hurting people. Such a view of the nature of sin is, I'd argue, highly contrary to reality and subversive to Church teachings. And, ironically, this renders any heroism on the part of Despereaux rather...flat. How can you be heroic in the face of evil if it isn't...evil? How can you be for truth and justice and honor if they're only helpful constructs that help you visualize the opposite of particular characteristics of the hurt-person? For the untruthful person is a product of something that's hurt him in his environment - likewise the unjust and the dishonorable. Now - Despereaux is a likable mouse, particularly in relief against the other characters, because he is courageous, honorable, etc. He is a hero! But within the film, that has no real meaning. So while HE is being a hero (in the viewer's eyes), he is not heroic according to the narrative.

Additionally, there is also something profoundly inverted about the nature of the world of Depereaux. I have no problem with anthropomorphizing animals - anthropormhize to your hearts content! I find it highly unsettling, however, that in the film the good Princess is in imminent danger of being devoured alive by sentient, rational, rats. Man is, by nature, a rational animal. The rats in the movie share that nature. Hence, the rats are men - small hairy men, yes, but men nontheless. In the natural order of things, man is above rats. Perhaps for that reason, the rat+trying-to-eat-princess scene Freaked Me The Heck Out. Granted, I'm squeamish and easily scared. But the inversion of the natural order (animals in power over man) compounded by the horror of rational beings wanting to consume the living flesh of another rational being? Eeegh! Aggh! Uggh! Then again, I suppose some might argue that ontological cannibalization really is kid's fare!

Note - this scene was not presented as a *good* situation. It was presented as a *very bad* situation. But it's a situation that I cannot conceive of as being appropriate for young children.

Oh. And ANOTHER thing! All throughout, there is mention made of how terrible it is to have your nature be a bad word, how we all act according to our natures, etc. While that's true, the language resonates with a hidden agenda: why be downers on the glbt lifestyle?

Finally, a comment was made in the beginning of the film about how soup day (a pivotal celebration in the movie) was much more important than Christmas - even though Christmas was STILL celebrated...Er...? While I very much doubt that this would leave an impression on a kid, it is nevertheless disquieting in light of how flawed the movie is.

Bottom line: don't watch it!

2009-01-08T07:07:00.000+01:00

Though this may not be entirely ladylike: I challenge anyone who speaks ill of His Excellency Bp. Vigneron, former bishop of Oakland, to a duel.

D'oh! The Church looks down on dueling.

Ok - then to an exchange of wits!

But...if you're speaking ill of Bp. Vigneron, I'm not sure I'd want your wits.

This is all to say: I find it really appalling that people outside of the Oakland diocese are judging Bp. Vigneron to be a modernist because...our Cathedral is not too pretty and Bp. Vigneron is not Abp. Burke - who has a reputation of having a spine because of his method of doing things.

Because everyone knows there is only one way of having a spine, EVAR. Yup. Yup. And those who are distant and have not observed the changes in the diocese are in a better position to tell us we are SO T'EH SAME AND BAD. Yup. Yup.

Poetic Justic

2008-11-25T06:21:00.000+01:00

I quite fittingly squashed a mosquito with Jacques Maritain's Existence and the Existent. Hah!

Side-Bar Update

2008-11-25T01:18:00.000+01:00

Seraphic Single is getting married (many congratulations!), and she has started a new blog that chronicles her adventures and thoughts as a woman about to leave the single life - Seraphic Meets Bridezilla!

The Frenzy of the Faithful

2008-11-22T00:28:00.000+01:00

Fr. Z (who provides a very balanced reaction to the Mass and subsequent statement released by Cardinal Schönborn) and American Papist have brought to the attention of the Catholic blogosphere the video of an unfortunate Mass presided over by Cardinal Schönborn. Immediately, there was a massive comment-box outcry, allegations of grave liturgical abuses, etc., etc. Simultaneously, there were snide remarks about how this sort of thing would NEVER happen at an Extraordinary Rite Mass, but with the Novus Ordo Mess (oops! You mean, Mass?)...well...

As things objectively stand:

1. Two possible liturgical abuses have been observed in the video provided: the bread used looked leavened, and the vessels were of wood.
2. His Eminence's spokesperson has responded that the bread was unleavened.
3. The Mass was incredibly tacky.
4. But! His Eminence conducts himself reverently within the context of the tackiness.
5. And! His Eminence has a history of orthodox thought and teaching.

Several issues have been raised - simply because it is not against the letter of the law to use balloons, or rock instruments, or strobe lights, does that make it OK? Cardinal Schönborn, some say, has participated in this type of Mass (instigated, even) in the past (I haven't seen documentation of this - which doesn't mean there isn't any, just that it falls outside of my scope to judge the truth of this)- does the thought that he might have been 'ambushed' by this liturgy hold any water?

Now the question is: what should a prudent person conclude from all this?

There is enough evidence to say that the Cardinal Schönborn presided at an incredibly tacky Mass.There is not enough evidence to say that participated in the Mass with approval of the liturgical setting, nor that he engaged in grave liturgical abuse - though the use of wooden vessels could constitute a liturgical abuse if they were not of precious materials (like ebony --- I could be wrong on this, though. Crystal and precious metals, I know are licit - precious wood?).

Sometimes the Mass settings are sprung on priests - it happens - and when it happens a prudential judgment must be made as to whether it would be more harmful to the flock to say the Mass (Edit: I mean here something along the lines of how the Mass setting would affect the faithful's understanding of the Mass and what example it provides for others) or to refrain from saying the Mass. Given that the balloons occur somewhat later in the Mass, presumably during the prayers of the faithful, it is possible that the his Eminence thought that the music and lighting were bad but were not such as to warrant refraining from saying the Mass - and began the Mass and was stuck (can you stop a celebration of the Mass?).

Further, the musical settings of a piece may not be known in advance. The Master of Ceremonies may have simply been told that the consecration response would be sung by the "choir." Was he told that there would be heavy metal guitar riffs, etc.? A bit doubtful. I'm in a choir, and the instruments used for a piece are not listed in our program or bulletin - I don't think this is an uncommon practice, but I could be wrong. Also: if Cardinal Schönborn presided at Masses like this in the past, is it possible that he may have expressed a wish for greater reverence and been assured of it for an upcoming Mass? I don't know.

So at this point, I would gently suggest that the prudent person should not conclude - based off of one video that included snippets of the Mass - that a Prince of the Church has kicked the bucket of orthodoxy. Give a guy a chance and wait until more details emerge. At the very least, a prudent person should not begin frothing at the mouth and assume the worst of his Eminence - charity forbids us from doing that.

I think it would be a shame had the Cardinal Schönborn actually participated in this with full knowledge and approval. But I don't know that he did. So I think it is a great shame that many people are willing to go crazy-righteous about this.

And don't be snide about the Extraordinary Rite or Vatican II (the council, not the "spirit"). Taking delight in perversion because it furthers your stance is...well...sick and icky! It's like laughing at a little child who falls down, cuts up his knees, but looks absurd. HAHAHA! (?) Or - worse - it's like taking a smug joy in the fact that one of your friend's boy/girlfriend cheated on them and you sit back and say "I tooooollllld you he was nasty. If you'd only listened to ME this wouldn't have happened! What DIIID you expect!?"

Meanwhile, your friend is uncontrollably weeping.

See, you people give the rest of the people who love the Extraordinary Rite a bad name because that's how you sound to us.

Finally: so maybe Cardinal Schönborn exercised bad judgment here. I'm not going to expend my energy raging about a possibility. I'm going to pray for my pastor, for priests, and for holiness.

Thbbbppppt!

Ladies and Gentlemen - Lend Me Your Vote!

2008-11-12T22:06:00.001+01:00

Vote for Thomas Peters: Catholic and orthodox. Why not!

Why I voted Yes on Prop 8 - A Post From My Facebook Account

2008-11-12T22:00:00.001+01:00

What's written below is what I posted in a note on Facebook, prompted by a number of my friends/acquaintances from Cal expressing bewilderment (that's about as polite a way as I can put it) that rational people could actually support Prop 8.

A debate is currently running merrily along, with a minimum of incivility and a number of interesting digressions that I shan't post here.

Before I write anything else, I'd like to start out this note by laying out a couple of ground rules for whatever response you decide to give me, if any.

First and foremost, please do not use any invective or ad hominum attacks in your responses. We can disagree; but, for goodness sakes, be civil! We’re not barbarians here, after all.

Secondly, I ask you to keep an open mind. If you sincerely believe that people cannot honestly - and with good will - hold an opposing viewpoint, you are either engaging in intellectual dishonesty (on this issue, at least), or demonstrating a lack of sympathy and imagination, or both. I understand why you voted No on Prop 8 and I see where you're coming from. But I disagree with your reasons. I do not believe that your intentions are bad or that you are idiots. Please extend a similar understanding to anyone who voted Yes on Prop 8.

Alrighty, then. On to the meat of this post!

Let me start off my making what may at first sound like a rather shocking assertion: *discrimination is either good or bad,* depending upon the circumstances in which it is employed. Allow me to ground that statement with an example: fruits and vegetables are better for you than fast food. That is discrimination. It is also, most would agree, a good discrimination. To say that something is discriminatory is not sufficient to establish that it is, of necessity, a bad discrimination. A discrimination is simply an act of judgment. In this light, it becomes apparent that we discriminate all the time - we have to, every day: is it better to study tonight or to go dancing? To bike or walk? It should also be apparent that we may discriminate rightly or wrongly.

There is a real biological difference between a man and a woman and there is a complementarity between the body of a man and the body of a woman. This is a fact. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman typically – or potentially – generates a new human life. That is the purpose, by nature, of sex. This new human life is (ideally, at least) the result of a loving union of a mother and father. A new human life cannot naturally be generated without a man and a woman, sperm and egg. The state supports the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman because of that unique relationship of man to woman to child and believes that relationship to be good for society.

These biological facts constitute the basis of my understanding of marriage. Marriage is not simply two people loving and vowing to be with each other. Marriage is the covenant a man makes with a woman by which complete unity and self-giving is achieved for the purposes of…making babies…and for lifelong friendship and partnership!

Note that here I do not expect you to agree with me that my definition of marriage is what marriage is. But I do expect you to agree that there is this peculiar natural relationship of man-woman-child, because that is incontrovertible – and the definition of marriage resulting from this relationship has always been the understanding of marriage, in Western culture (with the exception of polygamy).

For this reason, making a distinction between marriage and same-sex unions is not necessarily an act of aggression/oppression. It is recognition that same-sex partnerships simply do not share with marriage the same factual biological realities. Incidentally - if by marriage you mean a purely legal bond, then the state has the right to say what constitutes that legal bond is.

Yes, this is an act of discrimination. But it is not a discrimination that devalues the dignity of any human being: I'm not saying that people with a same-sex orientation are any less human than I am. I am, however, saying that same-sex partnerships and marriages are ontologically distinct things and hence should be called by two different names.

To many, this seems like a poor justification: what about the rights of the people? It has been pointed out to me that the proposition specifically says that it “eliminates the right…” I have been familiar with the text of the proposition for some time, and I take issue with the use of the term ‘right.’ There was a certain legal state of things, prior to the passage of Prop 8, that is no longer. But – bear with me – an assertion that rights are being removed does not mean that rights are being removed. Just as an assertion (and a legal definition!) in Nazi-Germany that Jews were untermenschen did not mean that the Jews were not fully human. In other words, I do not think that people in same-sex partnerships had the right to call a “partnership” a “marriage” to begin with, for the above-stated reasons.

But before I can go any further with that train of thought, it would be necessary for me to know what you think rights are and where they come from (I suspect we might have different definitions in this respect).

Finally, I should like to say that my goal here is not to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong. My purpose is to show you my reasons for voting Yes on Prop 8 - reasons which are not driven by a desire to unjustly or wrongly discriminate against people with a same-sex orientation. It is a judgment that the two types of relationships are not the same, and hence should not be called by the same term – especially since the term “marriage” is loaded with a number of connotations and social implications that should not be appropriated simply to accommodate an ideology.

Chibi Saint!

2008-10-23T23:09:00.000+02:00

Gar. AR! BAD!

2008-10-17T18:29:00.000+02:00

This makes me incredibly upset.

Why, exactly, do these Bay Area Air Quality Management District people have the authority to tell me I can't have a fire in my own fireplace?

Gentlemen and ladies, I call upon you - on the Spare the Air days, when this ban is in effect, light up a cigarette (preferably 10 cigarettes), your bbq, anything licitly proscribed, to protest this ridiculous ban.

There's nothing wrong with Spare the Air days. There *is* something wrong with invading the home when no illegal or intrinsically harmful activities are being performed therein.

One Mass forYou. And One Mass for Me. Step Away.

2008-10-15T22:02:00.000+02:00

Bubbling away in my subconscious, I've been aware that dissatisfied noises are made about the disunity of the "Traditional" liturgical calendar and the "Novus Ordo" liturgical calendar. The former operates using a one-year cycle of readings, and celebrates saints that the ordinary form does not, for a various number of reasons. The latter uses a three-year cycle of readings, and so on. Controversy probably inevitably ensues. I never really thought much of it.

Recently, I've begun attending the extraordinary form of the Mass more, due to practical considerations: the time of the Mass (6pm) is very convenient for a working lady. The Mass becomes more and more fascinating the older I become and the deeper my understanding. The reality and immensity of the Sacrifice of the Cross is more and more vividly brought home. Hence, if I can get to daily Mass and if I'm not feeling particularly lazy/exhausted on a given day (which I do feel on many days), I'll go - and I go to the extraordinary form, for the reason mentioned above.

There is no animosity within me towards the extraordinary form of the Mass - or to its attendees, which would necessarily include myself. Speaking from an unstudied stance, I can only say that I find the disparity of the liturgical calendars to be deeply disturbing. I don't want to spend my time comparing calendars (today, incidentally, both the new and the old liturgical calendars are celebrating St. Teresa of Avila), or entering into one liturgical rhythm on one day only to fall into another on the next. That HURTS.

One of the four marks of the Church is its oneness, its unity. But the disunity of the liturgical calendars within the same rite seems to be contrary to the unity of the Church. I'm not saying every rite must share the same calendar - but just that it seems fitting that a rite should.

I feel sort of like how I imagine a (rational, self-conscious, yadda yadda) puppy would feel if you say "BAD DOG!" and then feed it a treat. Conflicting signals ain't good for my devotional life, yo!

Thoughts? Insights? Haaaalp!

And so it goes.

2008-10-01T22:19:00.000+02:00

Sometimes, you just need a little more cute in your life. . .

...

KAWAAAAIIIIIII!!!!

You Go, Zip bing bang badda boom!

2008-09-19T23:37:00.000+02:00

For the past several days, I've been meaning to give Zippy Catholic the thumbs up for his sensible position on voting. Namely, that given present circs (McCain supporting embryonic stem cell research and this not really being a lesser of two evils case), a sensible person can reach the conclusion that it does not seem like there is proportionate reason to vote for McCain.

Mark Shea beat me to the punch.

I don't want anyone to win who does not - or is not willing to - defend the lives of the people he's pledged to serve on the grounds that they are too small - and is willing to go a step further and directly support the use of tiny human being's broken and dead bodies for medical research.

Third Party! FTW!

More Art

2008-09-03T05:25:00.000+02:00

More of my art! This is drawn on the computer, with a tablet. I'm not really happy with it - mouth is too small and the neck is off - but meh! It gets me out of having to actually write something for my blog!

Orissa Burning

2008-09-02T23:14:00.000+02:00

Thomas Peters has the story.

I strongly suggest that you ask Ss. Francis Xavier and Thomas the Apostle, patron saints of India, to intercede on behalf of all Christians there. These are our brothers and sisters in Christ who are being persecuted.

A Smidge O'Me'Art

2008-09-01T22:51:00.000+02:00

While the shoulder is off on this, I very much like the expression captured and the lines of the forehead.

Open Minds Turned Towards the World

2008-09-01T19:14:00.000+02:00

I've recently visited a Catholic group whose charism focuses on personal experiences, understanding why those experiences affect you, and what one can make of it. The purpose, it seems to me, is to draw our gaze from the experiences up towards the loving Father who permits us - sometimes for mysterious reasons - to experience them.

But - this causes some of the charism's followers to (I think) mistake emphasis on personal experience for a denial of the real value of abstract thought, of philosophical or theological enquiry. That is, I think, partly an allergic reaction to people claiming to be Catholic intellectuals who compartmentalize their beliefs in such a way as to rationalize opposing ones while ignoring the reality of the situation (that abortion is a grave sin, for example). And if you look around the world, you see many people engaged in rationalizing everything that our experience as Catholics tells us is wrong.

However, you have to have a criteria for judging your experiences - any experience from saying that chair is green to saying "daaaayyyyeeem - dat is a fine portrait you might say."

Criteria of judgment is not embedded in experience. In experiencing green, your eyes detect a certain wavelength, etc., etc. But to say that something is green, you are making a mental judgment (logically speaking, you're predicating the color green of some object) - and a judgment is a proposition that is either true or false. We can affirm a false proposition, we can deny a true one.

How do you know that your judgment is sound?

Over time we experience much many things. We may mistake a straight stick for a bent one under water the first time we see it - but we (hopefully) won't make the same mistake twice. We may mistake a turquoise for a green until we look at a color chart. Our personal experiences are exceedingly valuable because they help us to make sound and sounder judgments about the reality that we encounter. This is all, by the way, politely ignoring all that messy Cartesian distrust of the senses.

Notice, however, that we abstract from reality to get concepts of color and distortion - abstract thought is part and parcel of judging, it is fundamental, though it takes those experiences as its basis. So - abstract thought does not stand in opposition to the personal experiences we have. It accepts those experiences as its basis and builds on them. From many simple propositions we may form more complex ones - "Mary is the co-redemptrix," "Actuality precedes potentiality," "The Pope is Infallible," etc.

These propositions are not known or given by the experiences we have - these things are drawn out of our experience of Christ and the world around us - or the experience that others had with Christ and the world. If we deny that these propositions arrived at through careful and abstract thought hold any value for us, then we eliminate not only important truths of faith, but we also cast aspersions on those promoters of the faith who are named Doctors of the Church.

Philosophia Perennis - Athens, meet Jerusalem!

2008-08-30T17:24:00.000+02:00

Moreover, if God, by Whom all things were made, is wisdom, as the divine authority and truth have shown, then the true philosopher is a lover of God. But the thing itself whose name this is does not reside in all who glory in that name; for it does not follow that those who are called philosophers are lovers of true wisdom.
(City of God, Book VIII. 1.)

This looks like a very promising website. Nota bene: I stole the link from Dr. Ransom.

Day-before-yesterday, I received my diploma from Berkeley in the mail. It said that I had a bachelors in philosophy, from Berkeley, with all the rights and privileges thereto. Not sure what those privileges are - am I allowed to dance on the tables of Howison library, while patting my head, rubbing my tummy, and whistling Dixie, now? - but there you have it.

Being a Catholic and a philosophy major was reason for much astonishment among classmates. "WAIT," said one - "You're a Catholic AND a philosopher?" Huh... I didn't know that was possible."

HoYes. I was breaking that glass ceiling with the 18 million cracks placed by Boethius, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Pieper, Maritain, McInerny, MacIntyre, and all those others!

Vhat, however, is perennial philosophy? And Vhy should this interest Catholics?

If you are familiar with plants, you may recall that perennials are that class of plant that bloom during spring/summer, seem to die, then come back the next year during spring/summer.

Perennial philosophy is analogous to that - only instead of plants living and dying, you have questions of epistemology and ontology (broadly speaking) that persist through time/space and transcend a particular culture or religion.

Buuut. Us Catholics sometimes tend to view philosophy with a bit of suspicion, because a lot of funny business is seriously proposed by philosophers. I mean, Monads? Seriously? WTF(rillyLaceDresses)! So Tertullian, for example, said:

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between the heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from the Portico of Solomon (see Acts 3:11), who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart (see Wis 1:1). Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the Gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief.
(The Fathers of the Church, Aquilina 95)

Where's the love? Well, the philosopher is being mixed up with philosophy. In the early Church, some heresies were based on philosophical or logical distinctions or puns. It's very difficult to love something that you see as a tool that aids the destruction of faith by diluting, contradicting, or disparaging the gospel. Or, it's difficult to see the need for philosophy since Christ is the fullness of Truth. Besides, the Greek philosophers were pagans who believed in multiple gods. Why would you want to have anything them? That's a very short, incomplete answer (don't maim me, scholars, for it's incompleteness!). Let it suffice for now.

St. Justin Martyr responds:

Our doctrines, then, appear to be greater than all human teaching; because Christ, who appeared for our sakes, became the whole rational being, body, reason, and soul. For whatever lawgivers or philosopher said well, they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Word. But since they did not know the whole of the Word, which is Christ, they often contradicted themselves. And those who by human birth were more ancient than Christ, when they attempted to consider and prove things by reason, were brought before the tribunals as impious persons and busybodies.
(The Fathers of the Church, Aquilina 81)

Notice what Justin Martyr is doing here - resonating with what Augustine said about wisdom, Justin Martyr points out that Christ became a rational being. It is in light of our rationality that we are men. Christ became a fully rational human being. Rationality, then, cannot be contrary to faith. For God does not first give us the character of rationality and the inclination to grasp after knowledge while asking us to have faith in something that contradicts or is unintelligible (in principle) to that reason. Hence, it is natural for us to freely exercise this rationality in the pursuit of wisdom, which turns out to be the pursuit of God. All roads lead to Rome.

So, if you're not in philosophy for the celebrity lifestyle, shaggy hair, and existential crises every few weeks, then you are involved in the pursuit of something greater than yourself - wisdom, truth. This pursuit does not focus on things apart from the Word, but things that are a part of the Word.

I suppose I should add one more "if," and that "if" is the "if" of hope. Pope John Paul II points out in Fides et Ratio that:

It has happened...that reason, rather than voicing human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost its capacity to lift its gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being.

Philosophy is in trouble - we are experiencing a surfeit of factual knowledge about the world, but don't know what to make of it. We've lost hope that there is something above and beyond those facts, something that is the source of them and the answer to all questions.

So rock on, Philosophia Perennis! Make that reason rise.

On another note, there was a sound outside that sounded like something wood was being rolled around on squeaky wheels. My little sister woke up, giggled to herself, and proclaimed "It is the giant bunny!" Monty Python, what have you done!?

ooOooo.

2008-08-27T00:00:00.000+02:00

Catholic-SF picked up the story about the Humanae Vitae Conference!

LETS DO THIS!

2008-08-22T19:06:00.000+02:00

The University of San Diego (a Catholic university) is standing up for the Church's teachings. It withdrew the appointment Rosemary Radford Ruether to an endowed chair because she is pro-choice, pro gay-marriage, and pro-women's ordination.

Now Catholic bloggers want YOU.

Yes, YOU.

To sign this petition supporting USD's decision: http://www.brianmcdaniel.org/?page_id=662.

Just remember what Dante Alighieri said -

If the present world go astray, the cause is in you, in you it is to be sought.

So...signed it, yet?