Alive and Young

The New Evangelization is Rooted in . . . Vatican II

2014-01-17T20:58:00.000-05:00

Contrary to popular lore, the new evangelization is not something that began with Pope Blessed John Paul II. Often sited as the origin of the new evangelization is Bl. JPII's 1979 Poland visit when he said, "A new evangelization has begun, as if it were a new proclamation, even if in reality it is the same as ever." However this is not the origin of the new evangelization.

The new evangelization movement began when Pope John XXIII prayed for a “New Pentecost” (novo Pentecustes) in his apostolic constitution Humanae Salutisthat ushered in the start of Vatican II (§23). For Pope John XXIII to call for a new Pentecost is to call for a church in the modern age that is as convicted in their faith as deeply as the apostles were on the day of Pentecost and the years following. Moreover, there cannot be a new Pentecost without there also being a new evangelization – something Pope Paul VI understood when he expressed the desire the Synod Fathers had for a “new period of evangelization” at the close of Vatican II (§2 Evangelii Nuntiandi).

Though the new evangelization was a theme present in the ministry and writing of Pope John Paul II -- and he was one of the Synod Fathers; therefore, it naturally follows that the new evangelization would be emphasized in his teachings -- it is dificult to credit him as the sole instigator of the movement. However, the roots and origins of the new evangelization are in Vatican II, and not in the Polish address of 1979. So if you want to understand the new evangelization, first read Humanae Salutis, then the Documents of Vatican II and finally read Evangelii Nuntiandi. Pay close attention in Evangelii Nuntiandi, as some form of "Evangelize" is used about 195 times in the document.

Batman v. Superman: Helping High Schoolers Understand the Summa

2014-01-06T17:14:00.000-05:00

In the Church History Class I teach, we have finally arrived at the Scholastic period. I simply did not want to gloss over the scholastics without having my students at least try and read St. Thomas Aquinas (we were going to look at the existence of God questions, primarily Book 1, Question 2, Article 3); yet, I was wrestling for a way to try explain Thomas, the scholastic method in a way that they would understand -- I mean an argument free from most technical terms for which the average high school Senior would be familiar. I wanted the students to first see how the arguments were structured and worked. After all, Aquinas' Summa is a very foreign style of writing when contrasted to the other books high school seniors read. Solution: Batman v. Superman Summa Style.

Book 1 Question 1. On Victories in Battle

Article 1: Whether Superman would win a fight over the Batman.

Objection1: It seems that Superman would defeat the Batman in a fight based solely on his superior superhuman abilities.

Objection 2: Further Superman gains his strength from the sun and as we know the sun always shines.

Objection 3: Superman cannot be killed by any means known of today.

On the Contrary, if Superman and the Batman were to face off for a battle of epic proportions, one in which the bards will sing down through the ages, that the victor in deed would be the Batman, for as the saying goes, “The Pen is mightier than the sword.”

I answer that the Batman would have the distinct advantage and easily defeat Superman due to his constant struggle against superior opponents in size, speed, and strength. As the Apostle says, “In my weakness I am strong.” Furthermore, the Batman has defeated other alien races even after the end of him seems inevitable. Lastly, the Batman, having been trained in the best universities of the world and having mastered several fighting styles has the tactical and intellectual advantage.

Reply to Objection 1: It is not might alone that wins battles but also wisdom and strategy, for it is the tortoise that wins the race.

Reply to Objection 2: As we know, there are places the sun don’t shine, has never shinned, nor will ever shine.

Reply to Objection 3: The easiest way to defeat Superman is by means of the utilization of kryptonite. Victory does not necessitate the death o f our opponent.

Victor Hugo Saved Notre Dame of Paris

2014-01-03T16:05:00.000-05:00

In July of 1801 the Notre Dame of Paris Cathedral was returned to the Catholic Church in a state of disarray. Seven months later, the savior of this now glorious building would be born: Victor Hugo. Hugo was able to save the Cathedral by means of his popular book Notre Dame de Paris or as known to most English speakers The Hunchback of Notre Dame. One might even argue that Hugo’s main purpose of writing the text was the save the church, for it was set for demolition and or possible sale in the early 19^th century.

However, the church about which Hugo wrote, the church that attracted

thousands of visitors in the 19^th century after the book’s publication in January of 1831, the church that when fans of Hugo’s book arrived in Paris and sought out the beautiful building that was described in text they did not find for what they hoped. Instead, they found an eyesore ready for destruction. This is not to say that Hugo lied in his book or to his audience. He does spend chapters describing the dilapidated condition of the church as he knew it; however, he compares it to what it was in the 15^th century and how he envisioned it in its greatest grandeur. The tourists wanted the 15^th century version and not the blight upon the city of Paris that it had become.

The Cathedral of Our Lady of Paris has a tumultuous history of alteration often for the worse. In the 16^th century the Huguenots, French protestants inspired by the writing of the reformer John Calvin, rioted and purged Notre Dame of all things they considered pagan or idolatrous. During the 18^th century the church underwent a “modernization,” which some might call vandalism. The gothic style had fallen out of fashion and was deemed to be barbaric, very ironic indeed, so several architects worked to make the church into a more modern building. Stain glasses were dismantled and replaced with clear glass in order to let in more light, and the stunning gothic style choir screens were replaced by a more plain style of screen. Also occurring during the 18^th century was the famous French Revolution. Much damage was done to Notre Dame in the name of reason: the bell tower and spire from the 13^th century was removed, some of the bells were melted down and repurposed, 28 statues in the Gallery of Kings were destroyed, the church itself was made into a Temple of Reason, and finally the church was made into a storage hall and stable.

The Restoration of Notre Dame began in 1844 with a decree from King Louis-Philippe I. It took some 20 years for restoration to be completed and the church rededication by Archbishop Darboy of Parish. However, the lead-restoring architect, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, lamented the restoration process. He said, “to restore is not to maintain it, repair it or remake it, it is to re-establish it in a complete state that my never have existed at a given moment” (notredamedeparis.fr). In other words, the Notre Dame of past beauty is not the Notre Dame of today’s beauty.

Today Notre Dame is still undergoing renovations and preservations, the last completed in 2010. It houses several relics of Christ (the crown of thorns, a fragment of the true cross, and others) and play host to some 12 million visitors a year. After centuries of mistreatment, additions, vandalism, and purgings, the visitors find a beautiful Cathedral that was not as it is today. Fortunately, this is not a bad thing, for Hugo was able to bring about the salvation of a most magnificent building because he was able to capture the once forgotten and lost beauty of a church with his prose. In other words, he inspired in the heart of his reader the eternal longing for beauty. When the readers could not find the beauty in the way Hugo described, they set about trying to reestablish what once was, not for the sake of preservation or posterity, but because beauty and majesty speaks to the human heart in a way that no other things can.

32, Single, Virgin, Male

2013-06-05T22:28:00.000-05:00

I am eight years out from claiming the title from the 2005 comedy 40 Year Old Virgin – if I don’t marry by then. Unlike the movie that sought to depict all older male virgins -- who are not priests or monks -- into being awkward, antisocial, and weird, I hold my head high. I walk without embarrassment, and proclaim that virginity is the natural state in which all people are born and is nothing over which we should shame ourselves.

I know by writing this I make myself vulnerable and open to the attacks from the world. I will likely be called a “freak,” “weird,” and “unnatural” for retaining my virginity through my thirty-second birthday. I write this not for the cynic or the jaded who have become bored with their own life and find pleasure in criticizing the lives of others. For those who criticize virtue and goodness are indeed jealous of the lack of virtue and goodness in their own lives and seek to deprive others of it. I write this for those who might feel as if their purity and chastity is for naught, for those who feel as if they might falter in their perseverance, or those who feel as if they are alone in their quest for virtue.

Through my thirty-two years of keeping my virginity, I have learned and grown in ways even unexpected to me. A few of these areas of growth are what I choose to share with the reader.

In Control

I do not attempt to say that the thirty-two years have been without temptation. There have been times when giving away my virginity would have been easy. In those moments it was like a man being offered a low hanging fruit from another man’s garden. Sure, it would have been easy, and no one would know; I would have only cheated myself, and it was not mine to take no matter how low hanging the fruit might be. These temptations have allowed me to focus on who I am as a person and determine where my own boundaries reside. My “yes” means “yes,” and my “no” means “no.”

Even more so I have not allowed society to dictate to me the norms of my behavior and life. Some act as if the whole purpose for virginity is to give it away as soon as possible. Virginity is a dirty world only whispered in the corners of schools as if it is a disease or drug. Yet, to date there have been no reported deaths due to virginity. All the while people gather round their glowing boxes asking it for solutions to save them from the own virginity less they die.

If TV is, as TV execs have said, a reflection as to how the real world lives, then as a thirty-something male the expectation from society is that I should be sleeping around with girls by the third date, having sex with every drunk floozy who throws herself at me, spending nights at a lover’s place, or even sharing the same house or apartment. Moreover, every relationship would be either a syrupy-puppy-love-barf-at-all-the-cuteness-fest or completely abusive and dysfunctional. If this is what American culture and society expects of a thirty-something single male then I will gladly be wrong, and I will boast boldly in my wrong.

Regrets, Nope

One thing for which I am grateful for is that I have no regrets, no shame, no guilt. Not once have I had to second guess my decisions not to have sex. Not once have I awoke with a stranger in my bed. Not once have I had to do what my friends called “The Walk of Shame” (Leave a girl’s place early in the morning, before she awakes, so as not to have to face the consequences of the previous night’s actions.).

1,000 Ways to (Make) Love

Because I have refused to give into cultural expectations, I learned sex isn’t the only way to express love towards someone I love. As the saying goes, learn to make love 1,000 different ways. That is, learn to express your love to another by as many means possible. I have not met, as of yet, one girl who does not like flowers. Girls like flowers. Girls like being heard (even if you have nothing to say in return, just listen). Girls like to laugh, hold hands, hug, and spend time with the person they like and/or love.

Keep It Simple Stupid (K.I.S.S)

There is an odd adage that states, “Sex complicates things.” It has been repeated often enough that there must be some truth in it. Yet, interestingly enough, it is a phrase I have only heard from sexually active singles and unmarried couples. I find the opposite sex mysterious enough already that I don’t feel the need to make things more complicated than things already are.

Why does sex complicate things in an unmarried relationship? Simple, it signifies and expresses a reality it cannot make present. The body speaks of union, but the heart and mind speak otherwise, and it thereby causes confusion. To liken it to a sacrament, premarital (or even extramarital sex) is like trying to celebrate the Eucharist with milk and cookies instead of bread and wine. Yes, it might be delicious, but it cannot make present the reality it signifies. I do not mean to say that sex inside of marriage is not complicated. But the difference here is that in the marital union grace is dispensed to strengthen and help during those complicated moments.

Respect, Love, Not Use

I remember the moment when I realized girls were not just things guys tolerated for a while with hopes of having sex with one. In a lengthy “make-out” session with a girl when I was in high school, a thought entered my mind. “Entered” is too tame a word; it was more like superman smashing through a brick wall. The thought was simple, short, but would later prove profound. The thought was “using and used,” and it repeated itself like a broken record in my head for the reminder of the night. This thought was not from me. It did not originate in me. I was drunk on emotions, and my brain was flooded with a hormonal cocktail, and all I wanted was more. I would have never thought such a thought, but there it was.

Eventually, during a break, I went to use the bathroom, and as I washed my hands the thought blossomed, “You’re using her . . . You’re using her as a thing, an object . . .You just want pleasure, not love. You don’t care for her . . . She might as well be a toy and not a person.” My initial response to this blossoming thought was, “So what. I’m getting what I want.” The reply I received was shattering to me: “You know, she is using you. She is insecure. She is using you because she wants to feel loved. Do you like being used?”

I left the bathroom a changed person. I realized selfishly using another person as a means of gratification was wrong. I did not want to use her, and I was even more appalled at the idea of letting myself be used in a similar fashion. Little did I know at the time that I had a revelation similar to something a certain Cardinal wrote years prior. This Cardinal – who later became Pope John Paul II – taught that selfish, unjust use of a person was the opposite of love. “Wait! I thought hate was the opposite of love?” My whole life I have been taught that hate is the contrary to love. Now here is a Cardinal – the Pope at that – telling me otherwise.

Through further reading and studying, I learned that when a person is unjustly and selfishly used as a means to an end the result is that user cares not for what is best for the one who is being used. For love is to willfully desire the best for the other person. I might hate a person, but still desire the best for them and in doing so love my enemy. But I cannot love the person I selfishly use, because I make the person I use into an object, a thing, something which I no love care what is best for it. In those long make out sessions, I was doing the very opposite of what Christ wished: love your neighbor; not use your neighbor as a tool for your own selfish ends.

From a Guy's Perspective: Should Girls Wear Bikinis?

2013-05-29T14:38:00.000-05:00

I am always bothered by the modesty issue surrounding girls’ swimwear and most specifically the bikini. Should girls wear to what amounts to being little more than water proof undies? Well, I’m not going to answer that question. I’m a guy, and I really think the bikini issues should not be an issue. Too many of the remedies offered for immodest swimsuits only scratch the surface of a larger problem.

The most common argument I hear from others for the reason why girls should not wear a bikini boils down as follows: help a guy to protect his eyes, or be modest for the boys in your life, or some variation of that argument.

As a guy, I am insulted by that line of reasoning because I feel it makes men out to be lust machines capable of only staring at a woman's butt, breasts, and abs. It makes men appear weak willed, sexual beasts only interested in one thing when they get a glimpse of a girl’s upper thigh. This view does nothing to raise up guys and increase the expectations from the boys in our culture. We might as well just roll our eyes and say “boys will be boys.” If a girl really is worried about guys staring lustfully at her, I'd have to ask the question as to where in the world does this girl hang out that guys can't help but stare and lust? Like I said previously, if you want to tackle the issue of modesty by addressing clothing only, you are missing the point and doing it wrong; it amounts to what would be like trying to treat cancer with two Advil.

Girls, if you really want to help guys, modesty begins not with the clothes you wear or the swimsuit you decided not to wear to the beach, but in the heart and mind. Later, the mind and heart is expressed in your words, deeds, and choices. St. Francis de Sales would agree when he said, “Our words are a faithful index of the state of our souls.”

The bikini or tankini or mankini question is only a surface issue. It misses the real problem. For every guy friend or boyfriend that looks upon a girl with lust there is a girlfriend who tolerates it. For every guy that acts like a jerk towards a girl, there is a girl who tolerates it. For every guy who calls a girl “hot” there is a girl who is tolerant of his language. This is where girls fail guys most on the modesty issue.

I learned a lot about how to treat girls not from my family but from a few female friends in college. Some lessons were hard learned and sometimes embarrassing or at least awkward. How was I supposed to know? I have only one older sibling: a brother. Moreover, I attended an all boys’ school from grades 6 through 12. While is school I was too busy with athletics, music, and academics, I didn’t have time nor the interest in dating. So what did I know about girls upon entering college? I was supposed to get the door for them.

However, I became friends with a few girls who were like sisters I never had. We were interested in building each other and helping each other become better people. So whenever I said something inappropriate or uncouth in their presence they would call me to task on it.

“She’s hot,” I’d say.
“Let’s not refer to people in terms of degrees of temperature. People aren’t bowls of soup,” my friend would reply. “What did you mean to say?”
“She’s pretty.”
“Well just say that.”

I didn’t know at the time what my friends were doing, but they made me take inventory of what I said. When I called the girl “hot” I was objectifying her. Making her into a thing to be used and not seeing her as a person to be loved. She was little more than hot coffee or iced coffee, and medically speaking the only time a person should be hot is when they are sick. On hindsight, it makes perfect sense as to why my friends focused on language for they were journalism majors who were taught that language and words have the power to change the way a person thinks. This is exactly what they helped do for me. By changing how I spoke about girls changed how I thought about and how I viewed girls.

So girls, if you really want to focus on modesty, call all your guy friends to task on their immodest behavior and their immodest language. Help them to think differently about girls, so that they can see you are the beautiful person you are.

This was written in a somewhat for a reply to "The Bikini Question"

The Church and the University

2013-05-28T08:44:00.002-05:00

[Continuing prepping for next school year by doing a chapter by chapter summary of Thomas E. Woods's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.]

Chapter 4: The Church and the University

Intro

Woods begins the chapter by telling the reader that the Middle Ages was not an age of “ignorance, superstition, and intellectual repression” (47). Instead, the Middle Ages was a period of learning and inquirer y in which its greatest contributions to the world in the form of the university system (47). Quoting historian Lowrie Daly, Woods tells us that the reason the university came about because it was “the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge” (47).

Degrees could not be awarded without the “approbation of pope, king, or emperor” (48). Degrees issued by the pope or emperor were universally accepted and acknowledge across all of Christendom while degrees issued by the king were recognized only in the nation or that particular king.

Town and Gown

Just as today, there was an uneasy tension that existed between university students and the towns in which the students went to study. On the one hand, the locals loved the influx of money the students brought with them. On the other hand the locals found the students to be a nuisance, irresponsible and intolerable (49). Locals often took advantage of students by raising prices unjustly on books, rent or food (50). To help all students, many of who were studying to become clergy, the Church “provided special protection to university students by offering them what was known as benefit of clergy” (50). This privilege gave the students the right to have their grievances and cases heard in a church court instead of the state/secular court (50).

Popes, because the university was young in the Middle Ages, became the protector and helper of the university. For instance, In the papal bull Parens Scientiarum Gregory IX gave the Univeristy of Paris a right to self govern itself and to chose its own riles and courses and studies. “On several occasions, the pope even intervened to force university authorities to pay professors their salaries” (51). When universities, especially in the early years of a university, did not have a physical location relocation became a cause of concern for the town in which they were located. For thriving university to relocate would and could be devastating to a local economy. Therefore, eventually the states and local governments went to the extent to offer grants and special privileges to universities.

Academic Life

The main course of studies began with a focus on the liberal arts. The mode of education came by means of attending lectures, reading, informal class disputations, and attending formal disputations of others. Commentaries on various writing was one of the initial ways learning about a specific subject and text. Over time, the commentaries incorporated a series of questions. Eventually this would form into the classical scholastic argument to which St. Thomas Aquinas was famous for in his Summa Theologiae.

“Though their high-powered logic courses . . . medieval students were made aware of the subtleties of language and the pitfalls of argumentation” (57).

Age of Scholasticism

Scholastic studies, contrary to assumptions of this period of time, were not a mere appeal to authority. “Rather, the commitment to the discipline of logic reveals a civilization that aimed to understand and to persuade. To that end, educated men wanted students to be able to detect logical fallacies and to be able to form logically sound argument (58). The devotion to logic and reason resulted in one of the most famous arguments for the existence of God: St. Anslem’s ontological argument. Simply stated, Anslem’s argument might be summarized as “That than which nothing greater can be conceived” (59). Another proponent for the merging of faith and reason, or specifically of using reason and logic to explain the faith, was St. Thomas Aquinas. This is most evident in his Summa, but perhaps the most famous part of this work is in his arguments for the existence of God.

Quoting historian Henri Daniel-Rops, Woods recounts the chapter when he writes, “Thanks to the repeated intervention of the papacy . . . high education was enabled to extend its boundaries; the Church, in fact, was the matrix that produced the university, the nest whence it took flight” (65).

How the Monks Saved Civilization

2013-05-24T10:15:00.001-05:00

[Continuing prepping for next school year by doing a chapter by chapter summary of Thomas E. Woods's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.]

Summary of Chapter 3 “How Monks Saved Civilization”

Woods writes that the “history of monks” can be summarized in “Christ’s words: ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you’” (25). In seeking Christ first and laboring out of love, the monks reinvigorated Europe by means of a simple life style -- “comparable to that of a contemporary Italian peasant” – devoted to work and prayer (27).

The most notable of monks were the Benedictines founded by St. Benedict of Nursia in the 5^th century (26). In the West, St. Benedict’s writings, known as “The Rule of Saint Benedict,” became the foundation for western monasticism where according to The Rule all were equal in the eyes of Christ; therefore, St Benedict never took into consideration the worldly status of a perspective monk (27).

Though the main purpose of the monks was to find a way of salvation by retiring from the world, they also had a habit of bringing with them knowledge of the arts, learning technology, and more. The monks were not stupid and their contributions are many:

· The monks were agricultural specialists and an agricultural college. They tamed the wild and make that which is unlivable into a home.

· Monks embraced difficult tasks and inspired others to labor and that in work there is dignity.

· Selective breeding of horses and cattle (genetic engineering)

· Brewing of Beer

· Raising of bees

· Orchards

· Vineyards

· Corntrade in Sweden

· Irrigation in Lombardy

· Routed springs to Paris so the city could have water

· Used water, rivers and streams, to Mill flower

· Champagne (Dom Perignon)

· Pioneers in the making of Wine

· Cistercians were specialists in metallurgy

· Monk - Eilmer flew 600 feet with a glider

· Skillful clockmakers

The monks of then, as well as those of today, were known for their charitable works. Every person whjo darkened the doors of the monastery was “received as though they were Christ” (38). Two such actions, hospitals that had the “bell of the wanders” and the “Bell Rock”, a bell to warn ships of dangerous rocks (33). Copenhagen is said to own its origin to an Abbot who built a monastery with the specific intention of aiding those who were shipwrecked.

One of the most important contributions the monks made to Western Civilization as well as history is the sharing, copying and keeping of books. By sharing books, technology, science, and learning could e easily spread to other monasteries and be put to use. Most copies of classical texts come to us almost exclusively from the monks. “The fact is, the Church cherished, preserved, studies, and taught the works of the ancients which would otherwise have been lost” (41). The monks ensued that literacy and culture “would survive political and social catastrophe.

Learning was a central theme to the monastic life. Where the monk went so too education followed. They set up schools that would eventually become the foundations for the university (45).

"The monastic contribution to Western civilization, as we have seen, is immense. . . Who else in the history of the Western civilization can boast such a record? The Church that gave the West its monks also created the university" (45).

A Light in the Darkness

2013-05-20T13:38:00.000-05:00

[I am doing brief Summaries of "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D. There isn't much to the first chapter, so I am starting with Chapter two.]

How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization

Chapter 2 Summary “A light in the Darkness”

The author begins this chapter explicitly stating that the term “dark ages” was once applied to the time stretching from roughly 500 AD to 1500 AD. However this is no longer the case, as the more research is done over that time frame the more historians adjust the date of the “dark ages.”

According to the author there was a “cultural and intellectual retrogression” that occurred during the dark ages. Thus the darkening was no a luminescence but instead a darkening of the mind. However, contrary to popular belief, the cause of the darkening was not the on the result of the spread of Christianity. Quoting Historian Will Durant, the author writes, “The basic cause of cultural retrogression . . . was not Christianity but barbarism, not religion but war” (9). The author spends much of the rest of the chapter laying out how it was the Catholic Church that acted as a light during dark times, and How it had the task of civilizing a savage world.

The invading barbarian tribes/hordes were little interested in the life of the mind; therefore, they were a very illiterate and learned people who did not care much for literature, sciences, justice, and art. The barbarians were a very superstitious people who in many cases did not have much of a true system of belief as was the case with Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Therefore, when the church set out to convert the barbarians, they had a much easier time for “It is a fact of missionary history that the Church has found it immensely easier to convert people directly from primitive paganism or animism that to convert them once they have adopted another faith like Arianism or Islam” (12).

The main groups of Barbarians the author mentions are the Goths, the Vandals, and the Franks. There are two main tribes or families that were of great importance to the Church during this period of time: the Merovingians and the Carolingians. The Merovingians entered into an unspoken relationship with the Catholic Church in which the Gaul’s would protect the Church. This occurred with the conversion of their King, Clovis. This relationship remained till about the 8^th century.

Once the Merovingians declined in power, the Church was left in want of protection; She the turned to the Franks, specifically the Carolingians, and more specifically Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charles the Great (Charlemange). The Church peacefully managed the transfer of power from the Merovingians to the Carolingians (16). During the Carolingian period, Charlemagne “had been so persuaded of the beauty, truth, and superiority of the Catholic religion that he did everything possible to establish the new post-imperial Europe on the basis of Catholicism” (11). He “strongly encouraged education and the arts, calling upon the bishops to organize schools around their cathedrals” (16).

During the Carolingian education there was a resurgence in classical education with an emphasis on the quadrivium (astronomy, music, arithmetic and geometry) and the Trivium (logic, grammar, rhetoric). A uniform system of writing was developed by monks called “Carolingian minuscule.” This script introduced “lowercase letter, spacing between words “ and proved “crucial to building the literacy of Western civilization” (18). Moreover, as Europe’s collective intellect plummeted into darkness “The Church, as the Educator of Europe, was the one life that survived repeated barbarian invasions” (20). It was the unwavering determination of the Catholic Church that kept Europe from falling into an even darker age (21). Even when monasteries were destroyed and libraries burned and monks killed by the barbarians, a new group of monks could be moved in and learning restored.

Lastly, Pope Sylvester II, “The most learned man in Europe of his day,” sought out ancient manuscripts. Pope Sylvester commented on the importance of learning and not simply having blind faith we he said “The Divinity made a great gift to men in giving them faith while not denying them knowledge . . . those who do not posse it are called fools” (23). The pope’s views on knowledge and learning would go on to influence much of the schooling in Europe for ages to follow (23).

The Hobbit Cover Translated

2013-03-27T10:52:00.002-05:00

[Taking a 15 min break from work to post this. Sorry for the typos. I did not have time to proof it properly. I also wish I had more time to go into more depth with this.}

The original cover of "The Hobbit" was illustrated by Tolkien, and it had on the cover runes as part of the border.

Original Cover with Notes

I'm not going into the history of the runes Tolkien uses, but did you know the runes actually say something? I bring this us because in college the professors would sometimes spend a considerable about of time on the title of the book and sometimes even the cover art. Their reasoning was that the cover and title is part of the work of literature and should not be glanced over. For instance if you read "Finnigans Wake" by James Joyce the professor might spend time discussing "Finnigans" and might propose questions such as "Is it only one Finnigan or is there a multiplicity of Finnigans?" or "Did Joyce mean "Finnigan's"? Another example is the book "Cane" by Jean Toomer, which was written during the Harlem Renascence and is excerpts of life around the United States as experience by African Americans. With the proper mindset the title of the book can call to mind slaves working in the sugarcane fiends in the south, the canes slaves were beat with by their owners, as well as a a walking device.

Why does this matter to "The Hobbit"? Simply put, the book, according to the cover, has a duel authorship. One Bilbo Baggins who wrote his memoirs, and the other J.R.R Tolkien who wrote "The Hobbit" based on the memoirs of Bilbo's journey.

This matters because if you get a copy of a first edition of "The Hobbit" you will notice several discrepancies that many modern readers of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" are unfamiliar with. One such instance of this is that in the first edition Gollum loses the riddle game and very peacefully shows Bilbo out of the cave. Gollum appears to be a much gentler creature. The obvious reason for the discrepancies is that when Tolkien was writing "The Lord of the Rings" he had to go back and make revision to certain characters and even the ring itself. However, Tolkien himself is part of the story, so the way the revisions are explained, which I think is part of Tolkien's genius, is that Bilbo told the first edition story himself, and it was only later revealed after the publication of the first edition that the real story of Gollum and the ring was made known. Therefore it was then revised later by others to be in the current state that we have the book today.

Cover with translated runes
"The Hobbit or There and Back Again being the record of a years journey by Bilbo Baggins of Hobbiton. Compiled from his memoirs by J.R.R. Tolkien and published by George Allen and Unwin Ltd."

Runes

Tolkien and the Feast of the Annunciation

2013-03-25T11:04:00.001-05:00

Happy Tolkien Reading Day as well as happy Feast of the Annunciation.

Some years back the Tolkien Society was asked if there was a day in which Tolkien fans could gather, read, and celebrate Tolkien. The day the Tolkien Society chose for this is March 25 and is known as Tolkien Reading Day (TRD). Why March 25th? It is the day that the Ring of Power in The Lord of the Rings is cast into the fiery inferno from which it was made, Mount Doom.

Of all 365 days of a year, why chose March 25 instead of say, June 3rd? It is somewhat simple if you are familiar with Tolkien's Catholic imagery in "The Lord of the Rings." March 25 in the Catholic tradition serves as the feast of the Annunciation, the day the Angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear a son by means of the Holy Spirit and he would save the world from their sins. But there is more, in early Christianity, March 25 was viewed as not only the day God the Son became incarnate, but there was also a tradition that said he also died on March 25th. That's right, Jesus was made flesh and died on the same day. This is keeping with a tradition that believed that prophets of God died on the same day they were born or conceived. In fact, many early Christian churches celebrated Christ's death on this fixed date before Easter and Good Friday became a movable feast based upon the cycles of the moon as with the Jewish Passover.

What am I saying? To the Christian March 25th is the day that Lucifer is defeated by means of the incarnation and death of Christ. Likewise, the day Sauron is defeated is also March 25th when the Ring was cast into Mount Doom. One might argue that Tolkien is preparing his reader for Christ by means of a story. After all, he does write of a pre-Christian world. It would only makes sense that there are foreshadowing of Christ to be found in it like there are in other pre-Christian cultures.

There are other events that are said to have happened on March 25th. They are:

The Creation of Adam (Jesus is the New Adam)
The Passing of Israel through the Red Sea (Prefiguration of the defeat over the enemy as well as baptism)
The Binding of Isaac (Prefiguration of the Crucifixion of Christ)

Evil in the Hobbit: Conference Paper

2013-03-15T12:45:00.000-05:00

Hello Friends,

I know it has been a long time since I last updated the blog. I haven't forgotten about it. I've just been working hard on other things. A couple of weeks back I had the privilege to read a paper I wrote on the Hobbit by Tolkien at a conference, in honor of the movie release, at the University of Valparaiso. No there were no participants roaming the lands dressed as elves, orc, or hobbits. This was primarily an academic conference and less of a fan conference. However, there were a number of Tolkien fans at the conference: librarians, house wives, teachers, pastors, etc.

The conference itself was enjoyable. There a number of tolkien scholars present who sat and listened the papers being presented (Douglas A. Anderson, John D, Rateliff, and Verlyn Flieger.) A Lord of the Rings symphony was performed as well.

I'm currently experimenting with using audio lectures for next school year where the student listen to the lecture at home then we read a primary source in class. In the educational world this is know as a flipped classroom. Because of my experimentation, I decided to record the paper I read at the conference and upload it to the blog for others who may be interested.

I will say that the initial paper was 26 pages in length. This was far too long for the time I was allotted (20 mins). Therefore I cut, cut, and cut some more until I was in the neighborhood of 8-10 pages double spaced. As a result, I had to remove some of the sections that I particularly like in order to make the paper more concise. For instance, I removed a section on the Benedictian view of hospitality and how it relates to The Hobbit.

Intro and Philoxenia 0:00 -11:30
Landscape/Environment 11:30 - 12:19
Smaug, Seven Deady Sins; Bilbo and the Seven Virtues. 12:19 - End

Bumper Music:

House of Tom Bombadil by Nickel Creek
Betterman by John Butler Trio (the link is to a live performance)

The Lord is My Shep: Psalm 23 Homework Assignment

2012-10-23T13:39:00.000-05:00

It's been a while. Busy at work and busy helping coach the cross country team. In the mean time, I've decided I wanted my students to memorize Psalm 23. So this will be the initial assignment. Feel free to use in your home or classroom or parish.

The Silence of the Creeds on Sola Scriptura

2012-08-21T07:30:00.000-05:00

[A certain well know Catholic Apologetics group refuses to reply back to my email regarding the possibility of running this show essay, so I post it for your review and comments. I for one have not heard Sola Scripture argued from the point of the Creeds of the Catholic Church.]

If sola scriptura, in any form whether it is the strict fundamentalist Christians-must-only-believe-what-is-found-in-the-Bible or the more liberal all-Christian-traditions-and-beliefs-must-be-biblically-based, is true and has been the belief of the Christian faith since the beginning one would expect to find early Christian theology and writing to be saturated with it. However, this is not the case.

One place a Christian would expect to find the crucial and key tenants to being a Christian is in what the Church believes. In this case: the Creed. Through the early church there have been several different, but remarkably similar, statements of belief found amongst the early Christians, and all are silent on the issue of Sola Scripture.

The earliest known example of a creed is the creed by St. Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.), which is found in his writing Against Heresies. The creed, summarizing what a Christian believes, is as follows:

. . . believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.

One would think that if St. Irenaeus truly was a descendent of the apostles in office who was instructed in faith by St. Polycarp who was instructed by St. John the Apostle that what St. John handed on would be well preserved and that St. John himself would have at least instructed his disciples on the importance of scripture alone as the foundation for Christianity. However, Irenaeus’ creed is silent on the role of scripture.

A 4^thcentury Christian writer and historian, Rufinus (c.307-309) writes to a Bishop Laurentius in which he gives not only an exposition of the Creed but also a brief history of the Creed of Rome, known as the creed of Aquileia. In the course of his commentary, Rufinus draws out the differences between the creeds from the Eastern Churches and the Western Churches. Though there are differences, the core content is similar in expression indicating a common source. This common source, according to Rufinus, is the 12 apostles themselves. Thereby, making this creed the same Creed of the Apostles.

Rufinus states that the apostles formulated the Creed in order to help distinguish the true Christians from the false Christians who sought only fame and fortune by speaking in the name of Christ while ignoring the teaching of Christ and the traditions of the Apsotles. Drawing on a military analogy Rufinus explains the need for the Creed as follows:

Finally, they say that in civil wars, since the armour of both sides is alike, and the language the same, and the custom and mode of warfare the same, each general, to guard against treachery, is wont to deliver to his soldiers a distinct symbol or watchword . . . so that if one is met with, of whom it is doubtful to which side he belongs, being asked the symbol, he discloses whether he is friend or foe.

Rufinus even adds that the Creed was guarded from the false Christians. He writes:“the Creed is not written on paper or parchment, but is retained in the hearts of the faithful, that it may be certain that no one has learned it by reading, as is sometimes the case with unbelievers, but by tradition from the Apostles.” Yet, in the Creed about which Rufinus writes and connects to the 12 apostles themselves, there is no mention to scripture or the role of scripture in the life of the Christian. His creed is a follows:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord

Who was born from the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary

Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried

He descended to hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead

He ascended to the heavens; he sits at the right hand of the Father

Thence he is to come to judge the living and the dead

And in the Holy Ghost

The Holy Church

The Remission of sins

The resurrection of this flesh.

Also in the 4^thcentury (325 A.D.), an ecumenical council was held in the city of Nicea. One, and perhaps the most famous, of writings to emerge from the council is the Nicene Creed. This creed was the universal creed of all Christians for many centuries and is still used in the Catholic Church. In the current formulation, the Nicene Creed makes mention to scripture in passing and only in reference to Christ rising from the dead after three days. That is, it uses scripture to support one line of the text. Other than that, the Nicene Creed is silent on the role scripture is to play in the life of a Christian and fails to make any kind of allusion or mention of sola scriptura.

Therefore, if sola scriptura was the rule of faith for Christians since the beginning of Christianity, the question remains, “Why are ALL the creeds silent on the subject?” History tells us, via St. Cyril of Jerusalem, that the Creed was taught to all those preparing to receive the sacrament of baptism. If sola scriptura was the foundation of Christianity and the crucial teaching of Christianity from the beginning, one would expect sola-scripture to be the very first thing expressed in the Creeds, or at least mentioned someplace in the Symbol of Faith. Yet, this is not the case. The Creeds are silent on the subject of sola scripturabecause sola scripture was not and never was a teaching of the early Church.

Lastly, what history reveals is that Scripture was interpreted according to the Rule of Faith (the Creed). That is, the Creed served as a guide to interpreting scripture. By using the creed to interpret scripture it safeguarded the interpretation against heresies. Those who abandoned the creed or did not have the creed fell into heresy.

The Jewish Council of Jamnia and the Christian Canon: Fail

2012-08-13T09:30:00.000-05:00

Some non-Catholics, in an attempt to disprove the canonical nature of the Catholic old testament and specifically the deutroconical books, will commonly appeal to the Jewish council of Jamnia, which is said to have happen in the year 90 A.D. Rabbis met at the council of Jamnia, so the story goes, to set the canon for their book of scriptures. However, there are several problems when appealing to this council in an attempt to discredit the Catholic Old Testament canon: historical, theological, and canonical.

Historically

The idea that a Jewish council was held in 90 A.D. that set the Jewish canon of scripture did not surface till the 19^th century and was promoted by two German scholars – one being Heinrich Graetz. There is virtually no scholarly evidence, beyond a few scant rabbinical texts, that supports the historicity of this council. It is still discussed among some scholarly circles but mostly predicated with “myth” or “legend.”

Marc Zvi Brettler writes that the meager evidence from rabbinic texts informing us of this supposed council where the canon of scripture for the Jews was actually set is based largely on a misunderstanding of those rabbinic texts. Instead, the council was attempting to justify certain texts already considered canonical. One such book that was debated was the Song of Songs[1]. Moreover Brettler also indicates that the Jewish cannon was not stabilized until sometime in the second century CE and the process of canonization was a gradual process and not a definitive act at the Council of Jamnia[2].

If this council did occur, then a big question arises as to “Why weren’t all the Jews invited?” The records show a heavy leaning towards the pharisaic understanding of the books. It appears that several groups were ignored, even the African Jews who considered the entire Septuagint as canonical.

Theologically

Supposing the council of Jamnia set the canon for the Jewish scriptures in 90 A.D. and thereby Christians, as well as Jews, must follow the same canon raises serious theological questions about the nature of authority. First what gave this council of Rabbis, sans-Temple and possibly sans-priesthood, the authority to make a binding set of books for the entire Jewish faith? This is even more so when one wonders if the Sanhedrin and Scribes were present.

A second theological problem arises based upon the date of the council. Jamnia is said to have happened in about the year 90 A.D. What kind of authority can or does a Jewish Council, post-resurrection, have on the body of Christianity? To appeal to this council in an attempt to discredit the Catholic Old Testament canon is to essentially shoot ones self in the proverbial foot, for by discrediting the Canon with appeal to Jamnia is to give a group of Jewish rabbis authority over all of Christianity. This is a belief that is far from Christian. For Christ, from the Christian perspective, came to fulfill Judaism thereby rendering parts of Judaism nonbinding, or binding in a new way, to Christians.

Canonically

If the Council of Jamnia occurred, as once thought, what it does tell us is that the Jewish Canon was not a unified, settled, definitive work before the year 90 A.D. Examples of this can easily be found through history. The Ethiopian Jews had a different Canon by accepting all of the Septuagint. The Sadducees only accepted the books of Moses and authoritative scriptures, while the Pharisees accepted more. More recently, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been shedding light on the history of the Jewish canon to a further degree with a now incomplete book of Psalms, which appears to have been used in a fashion similar to modern prayer books. The Dead Sea Scrolls also have a canon more akin to the Septuagint except written in Hebrew instead of Greek.

Therefore, for a non-Catholic to appeal to the Council of Jamnia as proof that the Catholic canon is not the Old Testament for Christians is to hang one’s coat on a broken hook. It ignores history, promotes bad theology, and disregards Jewish culture and the multiplicity of Jewish canons in existence at the time of at the time of the Apostles and the very early church.

[1] Berlin, Adele, Marc Zvi. Brettler, and Michael A. Fishbane. "The Canonization of the Bible." The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. 2072-077. Print.

[2] ibid

Upon This Rock I Will Build . . . You Didn't Build That

2012-08-02T19:32:00.002-05:00

You Hate Chick-Fil-A? You Must Be Anti-Christian

2012-08-01T16:15:00.000-05:00

The article ran in the Baptist press initially on July 7 and was rerun by the Baptist press on July 17. The article itself covered a number of topics including the sunday closure. What I don't get is how does this . . .

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

And this . . .

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about." [A personal opinion expressed on a media show.]

get interpreted as "Chick-Fil-A hates gays" or "Chick-Fil-A is anti-gay"? Using the same logic . . . well, I'll just let Wonka speak for me.

Would You Like Some Heterodoxy with You Discernment?

2012-07-31T23:46:00.000-05:00

I attended a vocation discernment retreat this past weekend, sponsored by a local Serra Club, which was overall productive. The second presentation for the weekend was on prayer, which was delivered by a Cenacle Sister (one of the many women's religious orders the vatican is calling for renewal specifically for what she taught us). Keep in mind, she is presenting a talk on prayer, which is a crucial component when discerning one's vocation, to a large number of young people who will need to use what she presents as a vehicle in discerning his or her vocation; so my expectation for the presentation was high. At minimum I was expecting some quotes from saints and and some references to the section of prayer from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The section on prayer is actually the most beautiful section and arguably the richest section of the entire Catechism. But I doubt sister Cenacle knew this, for she appeared to be allergic the orthodoxy.

After the retreat was said and done, I was still bothered by what the Sister taught. I was bothered to such a degree that I typed the following letter, and I am currently debating on whether or not I should send this to the local Serra Club (who sponsored the event) and possibly the vocations director for the archdiocese. What do you think? Does the letter sound too harsh or too inflammatory? I don't want to sound like an uber conservative religious nut job but as a concerned member of the community.

To Whom It May Concern:

I recently attended the Life Awareness Retreat held at the Holy Name Retreat House in Houston, TX. Overall the retreat was excellent.
I would like to raise your awareness to the content of one of the speakers’ presentation. I do not recall her name, but she was one of the Cenacle Sisters who did the presentation on prayer. She began her presentation by defining prayer as “anything that helps us connect with God.” This is a definition of prayer that in my studies of Theology on both the undergraduate and graduate level I have never encountered. I am greatly bothered by the Sister’s definition of prayer because her definition can be used to justify nearly any bizarre act because one claims it bring him closer to God. For instance, if I thought torturing puppies brought me closer to God, than who is to tell me otherwise based upon the definition of prayer provided by the Cenacle Sister? To me it seems to run the danger of viewing the spiritual life in a relativistic manner. Why the sister did not use the classic definition of prayer given by St. Teresa of Avila, which has been quoted by many Saints and Popes over the years – Prayer is the raising of the mind and heart to God – I do not know.
Also, the blue sheet she passed out titled “Forms of Solitary Prayer” is riddled with theological inaccuracies. First what she lists as forms are not forms at all, some are expressions of prayer. This is troublesome on one hand because it hinders the development of a common catechetical vocabulary. For the form of prayer (meaning what kind of prayer you are praying) all fall into four forms: Petition, Contrition, Adoration, and Thanksgiving. When I read her blue sheet, I do not see any of the forms of prayer mentioned. Which saddens me because we had both Eucharistic Adoration and the Sacrament of Reconciliation (which requires a prayer of contrition). To quote G.K. Chester on the thanks: “Thanks is the highest form of thought.” A thanks acknowledges that what you have received is a true and real gift. Scripture time and time again reminds the reader to give thanks to the Lord. Again, why she did not mention any of these forms of prayers that are in the Catholic Tradition I do not know.
Several “forms” of prayer on her blue sheet are actually rightly referred to as expressions. Expressions of prayer help us in determining how we go about praying one of the forms. The expressions of prayer are Vocal, Meditation, and Contemplation. The Cenacle sister makes no direct mention to vocal prayer and barely makes a passing reference to dialoging with God; yet, vocal prayer is the foundation for all other forms of prayer. What she referred to as “contemplation” is actually called medication in the Catholic tradition. She makes no mention of true contemplation as being a gift from God and something that cannot be obtained by mere technique and practice. Assuming one can obtain true contemplation by means of techniques ignores the childlike faith and abandonment Christians are called to have towards God. By focusing on technique, one runs the risk of turning a technique into a vain superstition.
The Sister mentions the Jesus prayer under the category of a “Mantra.” Calling the Jesus Prayer a “mantra” does not to justice to the rich treasures this prayer contains, as the value of the prayer is not found in the repetition, but in the love with which one prays. It is at the same time and an acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord and Jesus as the Son of the Living God. The second half of the prayer is an acknowledgment that the person praying the simple short prayer is both a sinner and is in need of God mercy. It is a reminder of where we stand in relation to God and God in relation to us.
There are at least two attempts to combine Eastern spirituality from Buddhism to the Christian tradition. One is with what she calls “Mantra.” The second is what she refers to as Centering Prayer. These are attempts to Christianize kinds of prayer that do not have scriptural or historical bases in Christianity. I also find this insulting to those who practice Eastern spiritualties and religions as it is akin to a Hindu trying to Hinduize the rosary or a Pagan trying to paganize the Mass. The Vatican has written a reflection on the attempt to combine certain new-age/Eastern spiritualties with the traditions of the Catholic faith. The document is titled “Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life,” and it cautions against attempting to combine Eastern spiritualties with Christian practice. What Sister calls Centering Prayer is exactly one of the forms of prayer the Vatican warns against. Centering prayer is simply an attempt to repackage and Christianize what is known as transcendental meditation (TM), which has its roots in Hinduism. TM seeks to have a person, by means of repeating a mantra, descend into the center of their being so as to clear one’s mind and move to a higher consciousness. Sister defines centering prayer as a “spiral down into the deepest center of ourselves.” Prayer is not a path inward but it is a ladder ascending to God. Many well intentioned Christians have lost their was by practicing centering prayer because it led them to think that they and Christ are the same, it led them to depression and despair, and it has led some to an the annihilation of the self and a belief that all reality is an illusion. In short my experience with centering prayer is that it is not the light that people claim it to be.
As mentioned before, I am bothered by the Sister’s presentation and even more so when remembering the old adage of the Church “lex orandi; lex credendi.” For to pray wrongly is to run to danger of believing wrongly and to believe wrongly is to run the danger of living wrongly which in turn can put another’s soul and salvation in jeopardy.

Hollywood, Can You Pass Me the New Stories and New Characters?

2012-07-30T15:05:00.001-05:00

A recent theme has been appearing in TV shows and movies that is getting old very fast. The theme in short is that mankind is nearly wiped from the face and the earth and now a few survivors must band together in an attempt to ensure the survival of the human species.

The over arching story is as follows: humanity is wiped near to destruction by disease, zombies, aliens, machines/robots, vampires, nuclear war/Government. A show can even make combinations of two or more; The Walking Dead hinges on the disease that causes zombies.

For instance:

Day Breakers (movie): vampires/disease

Independence Day (movie): aliens

Battlestar Galactica (TV): Machines/Robots that act like aliens.

I Am Legend (Movie/novella): disease/vampires

12 monkeys (Movie): disease

28 Days Later (movie): disease/zombielike creatures

Falling Skies (TV): Aliens

The Terminator (Movie): Machines/robots

Dawn of the Dead (Movie): Zombies

Revolution (TV): Coming to NBC Fall of 2012. Electricity stops running, don’t know why, don’t know who, how, or what.

Most of these stories are a rehashing and repackaging of the same story. Even so much so that you have nearly the same stock characters. For example:

The Leader: The morally sound leader is fair and always tries to do what is right and best for the community. He keeps the foolhardy warrior in check and encourages the weak coward to excel. Commonly comes from a military background. Incredibly optimistic and he has much hope for the survival of humanity. The Leader is loyal and tries to keep the group of survivors together by serving as the voice of reason. In modern film, he is constantly second-guessing himself. The second-guessing is understandable when the writers of the character come from a society that despises truth and loves relativism and members of that society have never had to think about making a difficult choice. The most difficult decision most of the writers is often limited to what toppings they want on their pizza and what flavor frapachino they want.
The Mechanic: Can be a master DIYer or an actually handy man and mechanic. Whatever his background, he can make anything, fix anything, and is handier with a Swiss army knife than MacGyver. Your only mode of transportation break down? Give the Mechanic an episode or two and he will fide a way to build a forge, smelt metal, and construct for you an entirely new and incredibly bad-ass, post-apocalyptic, beast of a vehicle with mounted machine guns, GPS, and spikes.
The Warrior: Former hunter or military grunt. This is the weapons expert in the group and can kill anyone and anything, and he can turn anything into a weapon of carnage destruction. Turn to this guy if you need bombs made or need to learn how to fight with a sword, gun, knife, hand-to-hand, or a bouquet of daises. The warrior wants to solve all problems with force. You want him leading a military assault, but he always wants to be the hero, which commonly endangers the community. He falls prey to the vice of foolhardiness. Often this character thinks or appears to be invincible. Big dumb men often like this character.
If the Warrior happens to be a girl, she will likely be pencil thin and exceptionally hot. Her real skill resides in her hotness, as in reality an average man would be able to snap her in two because she has no muscle and weighs a buck-oh-two. Then again, she will conveniently know kung fu – which is the writers’ attempt to make her 102 lb frame seem dangerous. She is basically a man, but is really there to satisfy the feminists and give guys some other hot tart to stare at when The Hot Chick isn’t on screen. Big dumb men often like this version as well.
The Hot chick: Pure eye candy. She is completely clueless to her surroundings and too often forgets she is living in a post-apocalyptic culture and should not wander from the larger group. The enemy is able to sneak up on her with a complete marching band playing Stars and Stripes Forever and still take her by surprise, and she will be shocked because she didn’t know someone was sneaking up on her. She is mainly there because the other characters need someone to rescue. If it is a TV series, she will need rescuing multiple times. If the characters were really interested in restoring the human race, a better use for her would be making babies – that way she won’t be running off getting into trouble and forcing other to rick their life to save her.
The Coward: Always wants to run away and hide in moments of heated action. He never pulls his weight in a combat situation and as a result gets others injured and killed. He is the character the audience likes to cheer against. Always throwing The Leader’s decisions into question. He is the quintessential pessimistic.
The Tech Savvy Computer Nerd: Usually Asian and usually is dressed more trendy than the average nerd -- no pocket protectors for this guy. He can hack his way into any system at any moment. If it is a programing language he doesn’t know, he’ll some how learn it in the 30 seconds he spends successfully hacking into the computer database. His survival is based more on brain over brawn. He could likely survive on his own, but lends his support to the community because all those years playing WoW has made him altruistic.

There have always been stock characters for writers to use in crafting a story. However, in the case of some of these more modern rendition, the stock characters become more of a parody of themselves than an actual well developed character. Also, with the stock characters being sentenced to a certain slot, the TV show or movie looks like it is modeled more on Role-Playing games (think-Final Fantasy) where the player assembles a cast of characters that have one speciality: fighter, mage, rogue, ninja. If The Warrior falls than the group must survive long enough to find a replacement -- which they will do with no doubt.

Did I miss any characters?

Sometimes a Sword is Just a Sword: Freudianism Fails to Makes Sense of The Hobbit

2012-07-26T10:29:00.000-05:00

In an essay titled “Psychological Themes in The Hobbit,” Dorthy Matthews writes the following:

“It is only through chance that the key to the trolls’ cave is found, thus providing unearned access to the magic swords so necessary for later trials. If the sword is seen as a phallic symbol, its miraculous appearance at the beginning of the journey supports the ritualistic pattern of maturation in Bilbo’s adventures.”

There is no doubt that The Hobbit can be read as a tale of maturation or coming of age. I prefer viewing The Hobbit as an unwilling pilgrim’s tale as the goal of any pilgrimage is to return changed and hopefully find direction in one’s life, both of which happen to Bilbo.

However, I am really bothered by the writer’s casual tossing about of Freudian interpretation in regards to swords in The Hobbit. It demonstrates a lack of responsibility to careful interpretation and instead relies on a smoke and mirrors interpretation and many modern preconceptions that in no way fit the story. Furthermore, such an interpretation, which leads a person to equate sword to phallus, can only be had by over interpretation, wishful thinking, and a lack of practical life experience. I sometimes cannot help and wonder as to why woman see penises everywhere in literature. I think Freud would say it is penis envy.

Freud himself is said to have quipped that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, meaning that at every moment of a character or person taking advantage of something that is longer than it is wide (a sword or a stick of chewing gum) is not always going to equate to phallus. Freud was apparently a worse Freudian than modern Freudians in that he seemed to know the preposterous world view that might result by pointing at every taller than wide thing and thinking phallus. Taking Freudianism to the logical absurd end, a person sees the world in terms of phallus, and like the old Tootsie Roll commercial where all things longer than wide – trees, cars, buildings, dogs -- turned into a tootsie roll of some great size (with the lyrics to the jingle in the commercial The world looks mighty good to me/ 'cause Tootsie Rolls are all I see/ Whatever it is I think I see/ Becomes a Tootsie Roll to me), the phallus interpreter runs the same danger and should remember that sometimes a sword is just a tool, a weapon, an object for safety, a source of courage.

The sword, particularly those that are long and straight, has a very practical design, which is too often ignored by Freudians. The Freudians seem to imagine that long ago a man looked at his penis and concluded that it is the perfect shape for a weapon, when in reality it is advantageous in hand to hand combat to keep one’s enemy or target at a distance for safety reasons. When the cave man designed the throwing spear, it is clearly because he loved his own phallus and thought the best way to give tribute to it is to design a hurling weapon of destruction. The cave man might not have understood the principles of aerodynamics but one need not understand physics to know that a spear will fly better through the air than a block or most other shapes. If the Freudian view was true than one logical conclusion is reached in that men are apparently more aerodynamic than women due to the phallus.

There are several ways the reader knows quickly that swords are not representative of the phallus in The Hobbit. The first is that the sword never grows in moments of arousal and excitement, as one would expect with a phallus. If the word is a phallus, it only means that Bilbo and Gandalf and the Dwarves suffer from a dysfunctioning phallus. Therefore, the swords in The Hobbit are actually poor representations of adolescent and adult maturity.

Another way we know the sword is not a phallus is that a sword fits the story in time and place. What other weapon would Freudians have the travelers use? If the weapon is wider than it is long it would still be phallic to the Freudian– for you only have to turn it on its side to make it into phallic imagery -- and if the weapon was curved and circular than it would be clearly modeled on testis and therefore a phallic like imagery or at least an image in the neighborhood of the phallus, which for Freudians is close enough to the real deal. Tolkien wrote a story in which the main weapon of the culture and of defense was a sword because Middle Earth was colored by Anglo, Saxon, and Norse epic tales and myths where swords were the instrument of choice for the hero. It is not because Tolkien’s world was colored by Freudian phalli. In other words, the sword was chosen because it made sense in terms of culture and time.

A third way we know that a sword is not a phallus in The Hobbit comes from practical experience from any one who has ever lived or traveled through a dangerous land. The wilderness is wild and dangerous; if the proper precautions are not taken the traveler might be overpowered by the wild and the wild creatures. A soldier does not travel into the jungles without weapons, backpackers do not backpack without a walking stick, a handy weapon if needed, and at minimum a pocket knife. Why would adventurers travel without weapons? Moreover, the weapons a traveler caries add a sense of safety to the journey and help the traveler, when the time comes, to be courageous – as is seen when Bilbo kills the spiders with his sword. Without the sword he would have only been able to run from the spiders like the other dwarves.

Therefore, knowing who Tolkien is and his deep-seated Christian beliefs, trying to interpret his writings though an atheistic humanism lens is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You can do it but only at great force and not without damaging the hole or the peg. Lastly, in this case, the sword is little more than a magical artifact that assists the travelers in the adventures, and in no way is it a phallus. Sometimes a sword is just a sword.

Six More Tools for Effective Youth Ministry

2012-07-25T10:46:00.000-05:00

This past weekend was spent with a group of teens at our Archdiocesan Youth Conference. I enjoy going to these conferences because I get to see teens, many of whom I have taught, enjoy a weekend with fellow teens being challenged and affirmed in their Catholic faith. I also enjoy these gathering because I get to see what the current trends are in youth ministry. Here are six more tools for youth effective youth ministry.

St. Benedict: A 6th Century Saint for the 21st Century

2012-07-16T10:00:00.000-05:00

Over at Homiletic and Pastoral Review, an essay I wrote on St. Benedict is making the rounds on the usual Catholic news aggregators.

Here is the intro to the Essay:

Chesterton wrote that “it is the paradox of history that each generation is converted by the saint who contradicts it most.” He argues that this is the reason why the 19th century chose St. Francis of Assisi, and the 20th century chose St. Thomas Aquinas, as their contraries—or more rightly, the saints chose them, the times only thinking they have chosen these saints as patrons. The 19th century chose “the Franciscan romance precisely because it had neglected romance.” The 20th century chose St. Thomas, the master of reason, precisely because it had forgotten how to be reasonable.

More than a decade into the 21st century—in the vast, universal, communion of saints—what saint will emerge as the help of his brethren who are still fighting for salvation? Who, besides Christ, can serve as our sign of contradiction for the post-modern world? “Any saint” might suffice as an answer, as our world desperately needs the witness of many saints— vastly different in a way that knights are different from monks, and complementary in a way that knights make excellent monks. However, by saying “any saint,” we fail to realize that not only is one age different from another—being set upon by its own trials and successes—but also each saint is different from another saint in his own trials and successes. Though there really is but one success: being a saint. That is, the 21st century has a craving for a specific saint, similar to a pregnant woman craving a specific, often odd pairing of food, like hot fudge covered pickles. Who will satisfy this craving; to whom will it give birth?

If The Lord of the Rings was written today . . .

2012-07-14T18:10:00.000-05:00

the story might go something like this.

If Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Huxley and Ayn Rand Made a Video Game

2012-07-09T16:58:00.000-05:00

If Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Huxley and Ayn Rand made a video game it would likely be similar to the 2007 hit game BioShock. BioShockwas received with much admiration and recognition when it was released by means of a number of awards: Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences (AIAS) Art Direction, AIAS Original Music Composition, AIAS Sound Design, and 2007 Game of the Year from the magazine Game Informer. To date, over 4 million copies of BioShock have been sold. Despite the mass numbers of tweens, teens, and young adults who have played the game, I cannot help but wonder if they realize the game’s philosophical foundation.

Produced by a company known as Irrational Games, the game’s developers meld some of the darkest philosophies in human history and drop a protagonist in the middles of a city run by those philosophies in which he then must fight his way out on a quest of freedom and self-discovery. In a sense, BioShock is a thought experiment in which the developers imagined a world in which the Will to Power, the Prince, Objectivism, and Huxley’s Brave New World, were all allowed to play out to their logical (or really illogical) consequences.

The game is a first person shooter set in an art deco post World War II city known as Rapture. The protagonist, Jack – who appears to be a common business man, literally crashes into the entrance of Rapture when his plane crashes, and he takes refuge on a rocky outcropping in the ocean. There he discovers an elevator in the only building on the small outcrop, which takes him into the underwater city of Rapture. There, Jack finds a city in chaos and in ruin.

The city of Rapture was the brainchild of Objectivist business magnate and one of the game’s antagonists, Andrew Ryan. Those familiar with Any Rand should be able to see the connection here, as not only is the antagonist’s name similar, Objectivism is the school of philosophical thought developed by Any Rand. In Rand’s own words Objectivism “is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” This is a summary of exactly what Andrew Ryan hoped to accomplish with Rapture, as he hoped that in the city of Rapture he along with fellow scientists would be able to bring man to his perfection. More over, to draw out the connection to Any Rand further, the protagonist is helped through half the game by a mysterious man who goes by the name Atlas, which should call to mind Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.

Nietzsche dared to ask the questions, “why morality?” “Why not immorality?” “Why truth?” “Why not untruth?” Likewise, Andrew Ryan constructed Rapture to be a place free of moral and scientific constraints that had been placed on scientists by humanity and governments. There in Rapture, Ryan and others conduct genetic experiments on man with a complete disregard for the price or sanctity of human life. To Ryan, human life has the same value as a nail or hammer. Rapture was to be a new Garden of Eden fit with two forms of genetically altering material called ADAM and EVE. Moreover, Ryan can be viewed as a Nietzschian Zarathustra who is trying to gift to the ignorant world Nietzsche’s uberman by means of genetic manipulation.

Through the over experimentation done by Ryan, he creates a world in which Jack finds Huxleinist genetically engineered humans (similar to the ones in A Brave New World) who are produced for one specific objective depending on how their genes are manipulated. Female children, known as Little Sisters, are bred to collect ADAM from those who have died. Adults are genetically modified into one of two categories. The first category becomes what is known in the game as Big Daddies. Big Daddies are the bulwark for the Little Sisters. The Daddies have one purpose only and that is to protect and guard the Little Sisters even unto death. If a Bib Daddy looses his Little Sister, he wanders the remainder of the game lost, sad and looking for his Little Sister. The other category for adults are the genetically mass produced warriors, called splicers, who have been driven mad by an over exposure to ADAM.

What the protagonist discovers quickly is that the rule of Rapture is might makes right --an idea that has found rest in the camps of both Nietzsche and Machiavelli. There is no government in Rapture, only loosely formed gangs of splicers. Andrew Ryan and Frank Fontaine (another of the game’s antagonists, a former gangster and black market trader who is bent on destroying Ryan) both serve as kinds of princes where each seeks to manipulate and masses and eliminate any who step in their way to power. Therefore, Ryan has no problem trying to kill of Jack, and Fontaine has no problem trying to manipulate the protagonist for his own purposes using lies and other techniques (I’m not mentioning the other techniques as I wish not to spoil the game in the event anyone who has not played the game wishes to play it after reading this).

Hopefully, but highly doubtful, what the player of BioShockquickly learns is that a society like Rapture cannot exist in a functional state in our world, where the philosophies of Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Huxley and Ayn Rand rule. For each of the four philosophies lead to only one place: destruction and chaos. Furthermore, three of the four philosophies, sans Huxley, can bee seen as architects of death, and one thing BioShock is not in want is death.

On a side note, I’m also imagining a college level intro to philosophy class that involves playing BioShock before reading and studying Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Huxley and Ayn Rand.

The News from the City of S. Texas

2012-07-03T16:53:00.001-05:00

It’s summer time here in the City of S. Texas. Summer is a special time for children. School is out, pools are open, sprinklers are set up to be played in, and the cheap seats at the local ball park are perfect for catching a foul ball. One of the special treats of the summer is the ice cream man. His jolly jungle beckoning the neighbor kids can be heard from streets away, sends children of all ages to run about the house yapping, “Ice cream, ice cream” until mom gives them money to buy a fudge bar from the man’s truck. In one quick swoop, like a mother hen shooing her chicks along, she release the children into the street to find the ice cream truck.

When the truck is finally found, each child is rewarded by the first few licks from a fudge bar. The child can only get a few lick from the sweet chocolatey bar because it is so hot, so incredibly hot, that the fudge bar melts and the children are forced to lick the melted bar from their hands, forearms, and elbows. Nobody told the children that this would happen, but the kids don’t mind. That’s just the way kids are: unfazed by life’s mishaps. And when the kids return home a sticky mess they share that stickyness with the family by touch everything: remote controls, door knobs, pants. Finally when mom has had enough sharing, she commands her kids to clean their hands. The girls listen and wash their hands with fruit scented soaps of kiwi and mango. The boys though clean their hands, but differently from the girls. They are boys, they do things differently. They let Buzz, the bet beagle, do the cleaning form them with long sloppy wet licks. Buzz is more than happy to help and wags his tail with great excitement back and forth. And the boys think themselves clever for discovering a way of cleaning that does not require washing with mango soap.

It is hot outside. Very hot. It’s so hot that the other day it began to rain, and the rain didn’t even have a chance to hit the ground before it evaporated back into the clouds. The locals are able to witness the water cycle right before their very eyes. Incredible it was. Rain like this happens ever so often that it has its own name. The residents have taken to calling it dehydrated rain.

The children of S. Texas aren’t the only ones finding way to keep cool and enjoy the summer. The adults are busy too in finding ways to keep cool. The yearly blistering temperatures in S. Texas have led some of the more inventive types to tinker with personal cooling devices. For instance, Bob Smith created an air conditioning for trousers, a hat with a built in fan that ran on solar power, and a pillow that always has a cool side.

The more resourceful residents of S. Texas make do with what they have on hand to help keep themselves cool. Big John Jones, on one scorching day, resorted to bringing his kids’ baby pool into his living rom, filling it with water and bags of ice, and reclining into it for an afternoon of another Law & Order marathon. At times, he’d wander into the kitchen and open and the fridge or freezer door not because he was hungry but to simply feel the cool air against he face. If his wife isn’t looking, he’d grab a bag of peas or carrots, sometimes even a steak from the freezer and hold it to the back of his neck providing him a moment of relief from the oppressive heat.

While the men are digging in the freezer for relief, the wives are busy making their famous Southern, sweet, iced tea. The secret to making this tea, passed down from mother to daughter as a rite of passage, is to add the sugar and mint and any other ingredients to the tea while it is still hot- just after you remove the tea bags from the hot water.

Each night during the summer months, which in S. Texas extends from April-October, all families pray that God gives their air conditioning unit the strength to make it through another summer. Even though the thermostat is trying to get the air conditioner to get the indoor temperature to 76 degrees the house never cools past 79. Just this past Sunday at the First Baptist church the air conditioning broke. The compressor stopped working. Old Aunt Ester fainted from heat stroke and was carted to the near by hospital -- she had gotten to church early to get a good seat, and the heat just did her in. The choir’s singing reminded the congregation of molasses: thick, heavy, and slow. The music was less than the usual vibrancy normally associated to with a Baptist service. After an opening song, the preacher, who normally does not begin preaching till after the congregation has been worked up many hymns, took to the pulpit. The Reverend Clarence York, known for his fiery preaching of great length and depth, gave his shortest and most direct sermon. It was only 15 words in length. After mounting the pulpit he began, “You think it’s hot as hell in here. I assure you. It is not.” When he finished and stepped down from the pulpit the choir began the closing song “The Rivers of Babalyon.” This left the congregation confused. The old ladies, in their summer hats and fans, had not met their Sunday quota of affirming the Reverend and each other with ejaculative “yes,” “Mmmmhu,” “Amen,” and “Hallelujah.” The young men had not the time enough to study the young ladies so as to determine who they should ask to brunch. In fact, there would be no brunch this week with only a 15 minute service it was only 9:15 in the morning when church ended: so no fried trout on grits, no fried chicken wings on belgium waffles, and no eggs and beacon ruben breakfast sandwich.

And that’s the news from the City of S. Texas.

[My attempt to parody Garrison Keeler. I do hope it is "good enough."]

How the HHS Mandate Can Help the Catholic Church

2012-06-28T14:10:00.001-05:00

[sarcasm]The catholic church is really missing out on the benefits and opportunities that the HHS mandate is presenting it for increasing the size of its church. Religious institute and organizations are exempt from the HHS mandate; however, the definition of a religious organization is very narrow: all or most of the employees must be of the same faith and must serve people of the faith that the organization says to be. For instance, a catholic high school would have to have a catholic employees and have all catholic students. Do you see where I am going with this?

Simply require that all employees who are not Catholic get baptized in the catholic faith. Keep a priest on hand and simply baptize all people who seek services from your organization. If you get shot through the chest and are taken to Our Lady of Prompt Succor hospital, in order to receive treatment the person would have to be baptized into the Catholic fatih.

This alone could be great in reforming the religious life, as we could have an entire corp of ems technitions who are ordained priests.

After the baptisms, the hospital would then require the mystogogical period of learning and catechesis for a 40% reduction from medical expenses.

Several years would pass and the country would be majority Catholic and catechized in what the catholic faith is and not simply what it appears to be.

I fail to see how the HHS is really all that bad. [/sarcasm]