You know you are a Catholic nerd when...
Your biggest pet peeve is innapropriate liturgy.
When you serve mass, you also like to play the role of "Eucharistic policemen."
And some from the hilarious Lauren Funk:
when you are out shopping with your roommate and you both dive into a discussion on the true necessity of clothing within the context of the universal call to poverty
your friends start spontaneously singing Church hymns..in Latin....Fluently
you have applied the mysterious of the rosary to particular life situations multiple times...and your friends agree
you look forward to your 4am adoration shift
where are we all on a Friday evening? The chapel, thats where!
whenever your friends ask for advice, you response is normally "let God's will be done" and"be open to the Holy Spirit"
you have compared your sufferings with that of Christ and suddenly your final doesn't seem so bad..and everyone else in your class wonders what made you so happy
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Christ and Socrates: Martyrs to Truth
This is an essay that I recently wrote for a theology class on martyrdom and thought was decent.
The death of Jesus Christ is for Christians the pre-eminent example of martyrdom. Christ’s status transcends that of all other martyrs because he is the unique archetype after which all other Christian martyrdoms are modeled. Yet Christ’s martyrdom, at least one aspect of his martyrdom, has a historical model in the death of Socrates. The similarities between the two men’s deaths are remarkable. It is difficult to identify either man as a martyr for a single cause. Both abide by the positive law of their respective polities, both acknowledge their obedience to God, both die with assurance of eternal reward and, most importantly, both see themselves as witnesses to Truth. It is in his witness to the Truth that Socrates’ death becomes the prototype for the death of Christ.
Christ and Socrates both die according to the positive law of the state, and both not only accept, but defend the state’s authority to condemn them. Jesus’ quintessential explanation of the role of the state is found in Mt. 22:21. He says, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Here Jesus accepts the authority of the Roman government, and commands his followers to do the same. Jesus’ extends his basic understanding of the nature of political authority to his own trial, and even expands upon this understanding. When speaking with Pontius Pilate, Jesus asserts that Pilate’s political authority comes directly from God. Pilate asks Jesus, “do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” to which Jesus responds, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.” Because the power of earthly rulers comes from God, to disobey the authority of the state is one and the same as disobeying the Father.
Socrates likewise explains the necessity of obedience to the positive law. He refuses to escape his penalty, which is to drink poisonous hemlock. He had the utmost respect for his own city of Athens and thinks that no city can exist “where sentence given has no force but is made null by private persons and destroyed.” The good citizen agrees to “abide by whatever judgments the state may make.” One of Socrates’ primary arguments is that though the state may wrong us, we ought not retaliate by breaking the law, which Socrates sees as an attempt to destroy the state. He says that his escape would be “requiting wrong with wrong and damage with damage.” His condemnation of such vengeful behavior is uncannily like Christ’s command, “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Socrates applies this maxim to obedience of the positive law, even when such obedience is harmful to him and leads to his death. Socrates and Christ both die at the hands of the state without protest. Their acceptance of their respective penalties confirms their belief in obedience to the positive law.
More fundamental than their obedience to the state is their obedience to God. Both Christ and Socrates have the opportunity to escape their fate, but believe that God has ordained their deaths. When Christ is praying in Gethsem’ane, he says to the Father, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Christ turns his life over completely to his Father, and subjugates his own desires to the divine will. When Jesus is captured, he makes it clear that if he so desired, he would be able to escape his captors, but chooses to go with them willingly. He says, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” Christ does not avail himself of the possibility to escape because He believes his death is necessary to fulfill that which God has already ordained in Holy Scripture.
Socrates believes his death is necessary not to fulfill the Scriptures, but to best serve his beloved city of Athens. He says, “For this is what God commands me, make no mistake, and I think there is no greater good for you in the city in any way than my service to God.” His death, he believes, is according to the will of God and as such is also good for the state. Like Christ, Socrates could easily escape his punishment if he chose to do so. His friend Criton offers Socrates the chance to flee prison, but Socrates refuses the offer and explains to Criton why he must abide by his sentence. After Socrates has finished his explanation, Criton responds, “I have nothing to say.” To this Socrates says, “Then let it be, Criton, and let us do in this way, since in this way God is leading us.” For Socrates, the will of the state and the will of God are one. Both Christ and Socrates see their deaths as decrees not only of the positive law, but of God Himself. They accept death at the hands of the state because of their obedience to God.
Both men die with firm belief that their obedience to God will win them for themselves eternal reward. In Jn. 16:28, Christ identifies his destination after death: “I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” During his interview with Ca’iaphas, the high priest, Christ declares His exalted role in Heaven. He says, “hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” He is confident in his own coming glory and in his proximity in Heaven to the Father. Although Socrates will not occupy an exalted place in Heaven, he is certain that he will pass into a better place, into the keeping of the gods. He says, “I shall pass over to gods who are very good masters… I have good hopes that something remains for the dead, as has been the belief from time immemorial, and something much better for the good than for the bad.” Socrates classifies himself as one of “the good” people, for whom the afterlife will also be rewarding. Neither Socrates nor Christ has any doubt that what he is doing is for the good and that they will be rewarded for their obedience in the afterworld.
The two men’s hopes for the afterworld are based on their belief in objective goodness, or Truth. Both believe that their teachings and their choices, even the choices that lead to their respective deaths, contain the fullness of that truth. During his trial, Socrates compares the false charges that have been brought against him with his own teachings. Socrates claims that the arguments of his accusers contain hardly a word of truth, but says, “you shall hear from me the whole truth.” The paramount importance of the truth is present for Socrates up until the moment of his death. He is a witness to truth throughout his trial: he will not lie nor renounce his own teachings. He is honest, and yet is condemned by the state.
Christ explicitly identifies his role on earth as that of a witness to truth. “For this I have come into the world,” He says, “to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Christ is a witness, and his witness is universal: his teachings apply to all those who believe in truth everywhere and in every age. Indeed, Christ is not only a witness to the truth, but is truth itself, truth personified. He equates Himself with “the way, the truth and the life” and claims that “no one cometh to the Father, but by me.” Christ’s body is truth incarnate and his very person is the fullness of truth. His whole life and being testify to truth and he is thus the ultimate witness to truth.
Although there are manifold differences between the martyrdoms of Socrates and Christ, what is striking is their similarity, not only in circumstances but in the very words that the two men speak. The similarity between their views of political authority and obedience to God and their respective claims to truth are uncanny. The death of Socrates is a model which is perfected in the death of Christ. Socrates is the first paradigmatic martyr to truth and Christ, who dies 400 years later, is the perfection of martyrdom to truth. Socrates dies because he speaks the truth; Christ is the truth.
The death of Jesus Christ is for Christians the pre-eminent example of martyrdom. Christ’s status transcends that of all other martyrs because he is the unique archetype after which all other Christian martyrdoms are modeled. Yet Christ’s martyrdom, at least one aspect of his martyrdom, has a historical model in the death of Socrates. The similarities between the two men’s deaths are remarkable. It is difficult to identify either man as a martyr for a single cause. Both abide by the positive law of their respective polities, both acknowledge their obedience to God, both die with assurance of eternal reward and, most importantly, both see themselves as witnesses to Truth. It is in his witness to the Truth that Socrates’ death becomes the prototype for the death of Christ.
Christ and Socrates both die according to the positive law of the state, and both not only accept, but defend the state’s authority to condemn them. Jesus’ quintessential explanation of the role of the state is found in Mt. 22:21. He says, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Here Jesus accepts the authority of the Roman government, and commands his followers to do the same. Jesus’ extends his basic understanding of the nature of political authority to his own trial, and even expands upon this understanding. When speaking with Pontius Pilate, Jesus asserts that Pilate’s political authority comes directly from God. Pilate asks Jesus, “do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” to which Jesus responds, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.” Because the power of earthly rulers comes from God, to disobey the authority of the state is one and the same as disobeying the Father.
Socrates likewise explains the necessity of obedience to the positive law. He refuses to escape his penalty, which is to drink poisonous hemlock. He had the utmost respect for his own city of Athens and thinks that no city can exist “where sentence given has no force but is made null by private persons and destroyed.” The good citizen agrees to “abide by whatever judgments the state may make.” One of Socrates’ primary arguments is that though the state may wrong us, we ought not retaliate by breaking the law, which Socrates sees as an attempt to destroy the state. He says that his escape would be “requiting wrong with wrong and damage with damage.” His condemnation of such vengeful behavior is uncannily like Christ’s command, “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Socrates applies this maxim to obedience of the positive law, even when such obedience is harmful to him and leads to his death. Socrates and Christ both die at the hands of the state without protest. Their acceptance of their respective penalties confirms their belief in obedience to the positive law.
More fundamental than their obedience to the state is their obedience to God. Both Christ and Socrates have the opportunity to escape their fate, but believe that God has ordained their deaths. When Christ is praying in Gethsem’ane, he says to the Father, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Christ turns his life over completely to his Father, and subjugates his own desires to the divine will. When Jesus is captured, he makes it clear that if he so desired, he would be able to escape his captors, but chooses to go with them willingly. He says, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” Christ does not avail himself of the possibility to escape because He believes his death is necessary to fulfill that which God has already ordained in Holy Scripture.
Socrates believes his death is necessary not to fulfill the Scriptures, but to best serve his beloved city of Athens. He says, “For this is what God commands me, make no mistake, and I think there is no greater good for you in the city in any way than my service to God.” His death, he believes, is according to the will of God and as such is also good for the state. Like Christ, Socrates could easily escape his punishment if he chose to do so. His friend Criton offers Socrates the chance to flee prison, but Socrates refuses the offer and explains to Criton why he must abide by his sentence. After Socrates has finished his explanation, Criton responds, “I have nothing to say.” To this Socrates says, “Then let it be, Criton, and let us do in this way, since in this way God is leading us.” For Socrates, the will of the state and the will of God are one. Both Christ and Socrates see their deaths as decrees not only of the positive law, but of God Himself. They accept death at the hands of the state because of their obedience to God.
Both men die with firm belief that their obedience to God will win them for themselves eternal reward. In Jn. 16:28, Christ identifies his destination after death: “I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” During his interview with Ca’iaphas, the high priest, Christ declares His exalted role in Heaven. He says, “hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” He is confident in his own coming glory and in his proximity in Heaven to the Father. Although Socrates will not occupy an exalted place in Heaven, he is certain that he will pass into a better place, into the keeping of the gods. He says, “I shall pass over to gods who are very good masters… I have good hopes that something remains for the dead, as has been the belief from time immemorial, and something much better for the good than for the bad.” Socrates classifies himself as one of “the good” people, for whom the afterlife will also be rewarding. Neither Socrates nor Christ has any doubt that what he is doing is for the good and that they will be rewarded for their obedience in the afterworld.
The two men’s hopes for the afterworld are based on their belief in objective goodness, or Truth. Both believe that their teachings and their choices, even the choices that lead to their respective deaths, contain the fullness of that truth. During his trial, Socrates compares the false charges that have been brought against him with his own teachings. Socrates claims that the arguments of his accusers contain hardly a word of truth, but says, “you shall hear from me the whole truth.” The paramount importance of the truth is present for Socrates up until the moment of his death. He is a witness to truth throughout his trial: he will not lie nor renounce his own teachings. He is honest, and yet is condemned by the state.
Christ explicitly identifies his role on earth as that of a witness to truth. “For this I have come into the world,” He says, “to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Christ is a witness, and his witness is universal: his teachings apply to all those who believe in truth everywhere and in every age. Indeed, Christ is not only a witness to the truth, but is truth itself, truth personified. He equates Himself with “the way, the truth and the life” and claims that “no one cometh to the Father, but by me.” Christ’s body is truth incarnate and his very person is the fullness of truth. His whole life and being testify to truth and he is thus the ultimate witness to truth.
Although there are manifold differences between the martyrdoms of Socrates and Christ, what is striking is their similarity, not only in circumstances but in the very words that the two men speak. The similarity between their views of political authority and obedience to God and their respective claims to truth are uncanny. The death of Socrates is a model which is perfected in the death of Christ. Socrates is the first paradigmatic martyr to truth and Christ, who dies 400 years later, is the perfection of martyrdom to truth. Socrates dies because he speaks the truth; Christ is the truth.
You know you're a Catholic nerd when...
So there is this great blog called the Catholic Nerd Blog (http://catholicnerd.blogspot.com/). I want to pay a little tribute to this very amusing blog by posting a few Catholic "nerdisms" of my own. Here goes!
You know you are a Catholic nerd when...
You call the mass of Pope Pius V the "Trid," or the "Tridi."
You call attending two masses in one day "double dipping."
You can't find a date because all of your male friends plan on entering the clergy.
One of your good friends is more excited about his custom-made cassock than anything else that has happened to him this year...and he's not in the clergy.
Your friend calls you on Saturday night and says, "Hey, want to go to Confession? Bring some friends."
You'd have nothing to do on Friday night if you didn't attend 11:15 pm mass, because all of your friends are there already.
The words "heretic" and "infidel" are a regular part of your vocabulary.
You refer to your Presbyterian friends as "the Protestants."
You can't get through a dinner party without bringing up at least one of the Saints.
You question the morality of 'premarital spooning.'
You use your personal key to your school's chapel to go pray at two thirty in the morning...and you run into somebody you know.
Two of your friends are serving at mass. Friend 1 turns to Friend 2: I think that girl didn't consume the host! Friend 2 looks horrified, and sprints up the aisle after the girl. Turns out she did consume, after all, but you can never be too sure...
Such is my life, people.
You know you are a Catholic nerd when...
You call the mass of Pope Pius V the "Trid," or the "Tridi."
You call attending two masses in one day "double dipping."
You can't find a date because all of your male friends plan on entering the clergy.
One of your good friends is more excited about his custom-made cassock than anything else that has happened to him this year...and he's not in the clergy.
Your friend calls you on Saturday night and says, "Hey, want to go to Confession? Bring some friends."
You'd have nothing to do on Friday night if you didn't attend 11:15 pm mass, because all of your friends are there already.
The words "heretic" and "infidel" are a regular part of your vocabulary.
You refer to your Presbyterian friends as "the Protestants."
You can't get through a dinner party without bringing up at least one of the Saints.
You question the morality of 'premarital spooning.'
You use your personal key to your school's chapel to go pray at two thirty in the morning...and you run into somebody you know.
Two of your friends are serving at mass. Friend 1 turns to Friend 2: I think that girl didn't consume the host! Friend 2 looks horrified, and sprints up the aisle after the girl. Turns out she did consume, after all, but you can never be too sure...
Such is my life, people.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Chapel Veil: Tool of Oppression or Valuable Tradition?
I recently became very interested in the practice of wearing veils during worship, particularly when in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I embarked on a quest to discover all that I could about chapel veils. I want to start out by giving a brief overview of the history of veiling in the Catholic Church, and then offer my own opinion on the subject.
The history of the veil begins in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Paul describes his writing as the Lord’s commandments (1 Cor. 14:37). One of these commandments, the commandment to wear the veil, can be found in 1 Cor. 11:1-16:
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of god. 13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Ouch. This passage has no place in our modern conception of the role of women. It is diametrically opposed to modern feminist ideology and as such the passage makes many deeply uncomfortable. We read it and immediately rebel against it; it is at variance with everything we have been taught about woman’s relationship to man. Yet if we are to take Scripture seriously, we cannot ignore it, nor can we simply explain it away.
To accept Paul’s premise is not to accept unbridled oppression of women at the hands of men. Rather, we are accepting a divine hierarchy that was instituted by God for the benefit of all. Paul seems to anticipate that his words could be misconstrued and applied in a way that is damaging to women and attempts to guard against this possibility. He says, “Neither is the man without the women, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman, but all things of God.” Thus men need women just as much as women need men, and men also have responsibilities toward women. In marriage, the husband has authority over his wife, but also duty to her and to their children. Paul’s command is not an argument for the subjugation of women, but for the proper order of all things.
The common arguments for wearing a veil are five, and all can be found in St. Paul’s passage. These five are: 1. The Lord commanded it; 2. It is a visible sign of the invisible order established by God; 3. Angel’s at Mass are offended if the veil is not worn; 4. It is a ceremonial vestmen; 5. It is our heritage.
It is in the modern history of the Church that the question of veiling begins to become interesting and, ultimately, controversial. The practice of veiling was officially incorporated into Canon Law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1262, § 2 says, “Men should attend Mass, either in church or outside church, with bare heads, unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise; women, however, should have their heads veiled and should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”
It is common belief that the Second Vatican Council abolished the requirement of veiling. This, however, is far from accurate. It was not until 1983, nearly 20 years after Vatican II, that the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated. The new Code neither prescribed nor proscribed the practice of veiling; in fact, it made no mention of the practice. The question, then, is whether the new Code nullifies and replaces the old Code or not. Even if the new Code makes null and void all previous laws of the Church, it cannot nullify the commands of Holy Scripture. Thus, Paul’s command remains whether it is contained in formal Church law or not.
The belief that Vatican II explicitly denied the necessity of veiling, which even the Code of 1983 did not do, is not entirely unfounded. Jackie Freppon relates the story of how the confusion began in his article, “The Unveiled Woman.” "During the second Vatican Council," Freppon writes, "a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcover in the churches. His response was that the Bishops were considering other issues, and that women’s veils were not on the agenda. The next day, the international press announced throughout the world that women did not have to wear the veil anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women must still had to wear the veil. But the Press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil as out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups."
The “pressure from feminist groups” that Freppon refers to is no doubt contained in a 1968 pamphlet distributed by the National Organization of Women (NOW):
Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection within many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a ‘national unveiling’ by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches. (Dec. 1968)
If this isn’t a blow at religious freedom and willful dissimulation, I don’t know what it. As troubling as the practice of veiling may be to some women, no command of Holy Scripture, no matter how insignificant we perceive it to be, ought to be neglected, especially when to follow it takes as little effort as donning a head covering.
I myself have recently begun to wear a veil to Tridentine masses on my campus. I wear the veil to the traditional Tridentine mass because I know my choice will be accepted and not cause any controversy. I do not yet wear the veil to Novus Ordo masses. I fear that my choice to wear the veil will spark misunderstanding and possible aversion in my fellow students. May God grant me the courage to obey His commands more fully.
Resources:
General explanation: http://web2.iadfw.net/~carlsch/MaterDei/Library/the_veil.htm
Exegesis: http://www.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm
Purchase veils: http://modestyveils.com/
The history of the veil begins in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Paul describes his writing as the Lord’s commandments (1 Cor. 14:37). One of these commandments, the commandment to wear the veil, can be found in 1 Cor. 11:1-16:
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of god. 13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Ouch. This passage has no place in our modern conception of the role of women. It is diametrically opposed to modern feminist ideology and as such the passage makes many deeply uncomfortable. We read it and immediately rebel against it; it is at variance with everything we have been taught about woman’s relationship to man. Yet if we are to take Scripture seriously, we cannot ignore it, nor can we simply explain it away.
To accept Paul’s premise is not to accept unbridled oppression of women at the hands of men. Rather, we are accepting a divine hierarchy that was instituted by God for the benefit of all. Paul seems to anticipate that his words could be misconstrued and applied in a way that is damaging to women and attempts to guard against this possibility. He says, “Neither is the man without the women, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman, but all things of God.” Thus men need women just as much as women need men, and men also have responsibilities toward women. In marriage, the husband has authority over his wife, but also duty to her and to their children. Paul’s command is not an argument for the subjugation of women, but for the proper order of all things.
The common arguments for wearing a veil are five, and all can be found in St. Paul’s passage. These five are: 1. The Lord commanded it; 2. It is a visible sign of the invisible order established by God; 3. Angel’s at Mass are offended if the veil is not worn; 4. It is a ceremonial vestmen; 5. It is our heritage.
It is in the modern history of the Church that the question of veiling begins to become interesting and, ultimately, controversial. The practice of veiling was officially incorporated into Canon Law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1262, § 2 says, “Men should attend Mass, either in church or outside church, with bare heads, unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise; women, however, should have their heads veiled and should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”
It is common belief that the Second Vatican Council abolished the requirement of veiling. This, however, is far from accurate. It was not until 1983, nearly 20 years after Vatican II, that the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated. The new Code neither prescribed nor proscribed the practice of veiling; in fact, it made no mention of the practice. The question, then, is whether the new Code nullifies and replaces the old Code or not. Even if the new Code makes null and void all previous laws of the Church, it cannot nullify the commands of Holy Scripture. Thus, Paul’s command remains whether it is contained in formal Church law or not.
The belief that Vatican II explicitly denied the necessity of veiling, which even the Code of 1983 did not do, is not entirely unfounded. Jackie Freppon relates the story of how the confusion began in his article, “The Unveiled Woman.” "During the second Vatican Council," Freppon writes, "a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcover in the churches. His response was that the Bishops were considering other issues, and that women’s veils were not on the agenda. The next day, the international press announced throughout the world that women did not have to wear the veil anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women must still had to wear the veil. But the Press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil as out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups."
The “pressure from feminist groups” that Freppon refers to is no doubt contained in a 1968 pamphlet distributed by the National Organization of Women (NOW):
Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection within many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a ‘national unveiling’ by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches. (Dec. 1968)
If this isn’t a blow at religious freedom and willful dissimulation, I don’t know what it. As troubling as the practice of veiling may be to some women, no command of Holy Scripture, no matter how insignificant we perceive it to be, ought to be neglected, especially when to follow it takes as little effort as donning a head covering.
I myself have recently begun to wear a veil to Tridentine masses on my campus. I wear the veil to the traditional Tridentine mass because I know my choice will be accepted and not cause any controversy. I do not yet wear the veil to Novus Ordo masses. I fear that my choice to wear the veil will spark misunderstanding and possible aversion in my fellow students. May God grant me the courage to obey His commands more fully.
Resources:
General explanation: http://web2.iadfw.net/~carlsch/MaterDei/Library/the_veil.htm
Exegesis: http://www.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm
Purchase veils: http://modestyveils.com/
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Bumper Stickers
My best friend in the whole world, a young lady I have known since my infancy, is a self-professed dirt-worshipping, tree-hugging, bisexual neo-Pagan. To be perfectly honest, I am still trying to discover what exactly all of this implies. This young lady has a penchant for covering her car in bumper stickers. So, for Christmas, I thought I would purchase a few I thought she would like and give them to her. While searching for one in particular I had seen, which reads “Sorry I missed church, I was busy practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian,” I came across several that really sparked my ire. I’d like to comment on a few of them.
Imagine: Nothing to Kill or Die For
As an ardent defender of the culture of life, I’m right along with the bumper sticker at first. But then comes the “or die” part. Apparently, having nothing to die for is now a utopian ideal. I had always thought that being willing to die for things – for virtue, for love of another, for faith – was a good thing, indeed something intrinsic to human nature. I did not select these three things at random. Rather, they are three of the four categories of martyrdom in the Catholic Church. The Church affirms that dying for these things is a sign of God’s grace. A world without people with belief as great as the martyrs is a bleak vision indeed.
Keep Your Theology off my Biology!
I am not quite sure whether this bumper sticker is supposed to be about abortion or about evolution, but because I am better versed on abortion, I’ll assume it’s the former. Unfortunately, biology confirms the pro-life point of view. Biology shows us that from the moment of conception, a new and genetically distinct life is formed. Biology shows us that from the moment of conception, this new life is a human life because it has human DNA. Scientific technology, specifically ultrasound machines, is one of the pro-life movement’s best allies. It is not religion, nor the pro-life movement, that corrupts biology; rather it is the pro-choice, pro-contraception ideology that corrupts biology. When scientific definitions become inconvenient for pro-choicers, they simply change them.
Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities:
I completely agree with this statement, but perhaps would apply it somewhat differently than its makers intended. I can only assume they are referring to our current government, which has ‘brainwashed’ the American population into fighting an ‘atrocious’ war against poor Iraq. Yet I would apply this statement to something rather different. The absurdities that so many people believe in today are moral relativism and a notion of human rights without any grounding in natural law or theology. Many atrocities are committed in the name of these absurdities, but the most obviously heinous is the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children in the form of procured abortion.
Those Who Would Give Up Essential Liberty to Purchase Temporary Safety Deserve Neither Liberty nor Safety – Benjamin Franklin:
Again, I don’t disagree with the statement, but its application. I assume that this one is again referring to the Iraq war. Those opposed to enhanced security measures in a time of war misunderstand something fundamental: there can be no freedom without security and order. Freedom and liberty are impossible without security. Lack of security threatens even the most essential freedom – the freedom to simply be alive. Further, there is a distinct difference between measures that procure temporary safety, and temporary measures that procure safety.
There Never Was a Good War or a Bad Peace – Benjamin Franklin:
1. There has never been a good war, but there may very well have been justified wars. WWII – ring any bells? 2. Lack of war does not imply peace – sometimes it implies utter chaos and disordered violence. Today’s wars predominantly seek to contain or limit evil and violence.
What Exactly Are Conservatives Conserving?
Tradition, values, morality, family, society, Western civilization, faith, freedom, principles, personal responsibility, the rights of the individual, the dignity of each and every human being, modesty, respect, community… nothing really important, I suppose.
Imagine: Nothing to Kill or Die For
As an ardent defender of the culture of life, I’m right along with the bumper sticker at first. But then comes the “or die” part. Apparently, having nothing to die for is now a utopian ideal. I had always thought that being willing to die for things – for virtue, for love of another, for faith – was a good thing, indeed something intrinsic to human nature. I did not select these three things at random. Rather, they are three of the four categories of martyrdom in the Catholic Church. The Church affirms that dying for these things is a sign of God’s grace. A world without people with belief as great as the martyrs is a bleak vision indeed.
Keep Your Theology off my Biology!
I am not quite sure whether this bumper sticker is supposed to be about abortion or about evolution, but because I am better versed on abortion, I’ll assume it’s the former. Unfortunately, biology confirms the pro-life point of view. Biology shows us that from the moment of conception, a new and genetically distinct life is formed. Biology shows us that from the moment of conception, this new life is a human life because it has human DNA. Scientific technology, specifically ultrasound machines, is one of the pro-life movement’s best allies. It is not religion, nor the pro-life movement, that corrupts biology; rather it is the pro-choice, pro-contraception ideology that corrupts biology. When scientific definitions become inconvenient for pro-choicers, they simply change them.
Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities:
I completely agree with this statement, but perhaps would apply it somewhat differently than its makers intended. I can only assume they are referring to our current government, which has ‘brainwashed’ the American population into fighting an ‘atrocious’ war against poor Iraq. Yet I would apply this statement to something rather different. The absurdities that so many people believe in today are moral relativism and a notion of human rights without any grounding in natural law or theology. Many atrocities are committed in the name of these absurdities, but the most obviously heinous is the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children in the form of procured abortion.
Those Who Would Give Up Essential Liberty to Purchase Temporary Safety Deserve Neither Liberty nor Safety – Benjamin Franklin:
Again, I don’t disagree with the statement, but its application. I assume that this one is again referring to the Iraq war. Those opposed to enhanced security measures in a time of war misunderstand something fundamental: there can be no freedom without security and order. Freedom and liberty are impossible without security. Lack of security threatens even the most essential freedom – the freedom to simply be alive. Further, there is a distinct difference between measures that procure temporary safety, and temporary measures that procure safety.
There Never Was a Good War or a Bad Peace – Benjamin Franklin:
1. There has never been a good war, but there may very well have been justified wars. WWII – ring any bells? 2. Lack of war does not imply peace – sometimes it implies utter chaos and disordered violence. Today’s wars predominantly seek to contain or limit evil and violence.
What Exactly Are Conservatives Conserving?
Tradition, values, morality, family, society, Western civilization, faith, freedom, principles, personal responsibility, the rights of the individual, the dignity of each and every human being, modesty, respect, community… nothing really important, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)