And Today, I Am Reliably Informed, Is National Meatball Day

Told Himself I was sorry that I hadn't gotten anything for him, and that it was too late to change menu plans.
That's all right, he countered, I didn't get you anything yesterday for International Women's Day.
Well, you allowed me to celebrate it, and since you control the world I guess that's something.
True.
I was being facetious, I shouted, you need to own your privilege, and be woke to my suffering,
Perhaps you should lie down, he murmurred, not even looking up from his computer, could  you get me a cup of coffee first?

Me, at 7: I Looooove Root Beer My Snarky Little Brother: Yeah? Then Why Don't You Marry It?

What hicks we were!
Little did I know that what he suggested was possible.!

Earlier this month, a professor at Santa Monica College led students in an ‘EcoSexual Sextravaganza’ in which participants ‘married the ocean.’
Amber Katherine, a philosophy professor who helped organize the May 14 event, explained to Campus Reform that the purpose of the “wedding” was to bring about a deeper love for the planet through “ecocentric passion and even lust.”
The ceremony began with ... a former SMC student, proclaiming to those gathered at Santa Monica Beach that “today we stand upon this holy earth and in this sacred space to witness the rite of matrimony between the sea and us all.”
Next, leaders of the event distributed rings to the students, announcing “with this ring, I bestow upon the sea the treasures of my mind heart and hands—as well as my body and soul. With the power vested in us, we now pronounce you ‘married to the sea.’”

Oh. Or would that have been a mixed marriage? I mean, the body is what? about 60% water? But alas, no root beer at all...

A mug like that.....? Forget that mug and find another, One of your own kind, Stick to your own kind!

Strangely Fitting That the Sacrament of Marriage Should Be the Battleground On Which the War of Who Ought Be Admitted to Holy Communion is Fought

And no, I don't mean because wedded bliss sometimes gives way to wedded blitzkrieg...

Look at it this way - receiving the Sacrament of Unity when there is no unity, seeking to hold the Host when you don't hold to the teachings about grace and sin which the Church hands down from Christ, partaking of the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb without submitting to His leadership, enjoying the Bread of Heaven with the Mystical Body of Christ the tenets of which you don't fully espouse?

Why, it's kinda like enjoying the marital bed with a partner you haven't fully espoused.

Isn't it?

The outright lie you tell with your body by presenting form Communion when you are not in union with the Bride of Christ is, perhaps, the same lie you tell with your body when you have conjugal relations with someone who is not your sacramental bride or bridegroom.

Why would anyone want to tell such a lie, or to have such a lie told?

Heroism, the Average Man and the Subtle Condescension of Lowered Expectations

(Yes, "man," I consider myself included in the term, I am part of mankind.)
I have to confess, (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea minima [?] culpa,) since the organ in which it appeared its not one from which I find I receive much information nor food for thought, I had not actually read the entire interview in which a German prelate had opined that "heroism is not for the average Christian."

It is a ludicrous statement, a theologian might as well say that sanctity or sainthood is not for the average Christian, the grandeur of Heaven is not for the average Christian, the doing more than the minimum to get by is not, or the Beatific Vision, or the effort to live without sin...
Not called to holiness, not called to grapple with the prince of this world and his rules for  going along to get along...
One might as well say that the Glory of having been created in the image and likeness of God is "not for" you.
You.
There.
You commonplace persons, you member of the hoi polloi, you sad little average person.
Not everyone agrees.
There was a link to a FOCUS article about heroism in my inbox, and some pretty solid advice, (though the trendy jargon of "being present in the moment," I could have wished had been worded differently.) An excerpt:

1.     Pray.
Build and solidify your relationship daily with Jesus Christ, the most heroic among us.
2.     Practice saying no to yourself.
Build a habit of saying no to the things you want. This will make you the master of your own will.
3.     Be present in the moment.
Become interested in the people you’re with.  Don’t wish your life away.
4.     Lead someone else.
As you try to grow in virtue, teach someone else those same virtues which you are building — and then show them how to teach someone else.

Also, instead of merely reading the money quotes as reported elsewhere, I did read the rest of the Cardinal Kasper interview. His "hero" line in context:

To live together as brother and sister? Of course I have high respect for those who are [living together as brother and sister]. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian. That could also create new tensions. Adultery is not only wrong sexual behavior. It’s to leave a familiaris consortio, a communion, and to establish a new one. But normally it’s also the sexual relations in such a communion, so I can’t say whether it’s ongoing adultery. Therefore I would say, yes, absolution is possible. Mercy means God gives to everybody who converts and repents a new chance.
I have high respect for such people [those who say that absolution requires penance, and that entails a firm purpose of amendment]. But whether I can impose it is another question.

'Zat really any better? As a confessor or spiritual director he "can't say whether it’s ongoing adultery"? Of course you can't impose any penance or absolution fort that matter FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SAY IS A SIN.
Oh, one last section, which I will not criticize, but which leaves me flummoxed:

CWL: When you talk about a divorced and remarried Catholic not being able to fulfil the rigorist’s requirements without incurring a new guilt, what would he or she be guilty of?
Kasper: The breakup of the second family. If there are children you cannot do it. If you’re engaged to a new partner, you’ve given your word, and so it’s not possible.

"Engaged"? "Given your word"?
Perhaps by "engaged" he means something other than the immediate association most anglophones have.
But is there guilt in breaking your words when the very giving of it breaks and earlier one?
And yes, children, if there are any, should be the first consideration.
This, of course, includes children from the previous union.
But is it good for a child to live in an environment where at least one of his parents has come to the realization that, whether fully culpable or not, his participation in conjugal relations is sinful, and is not willing to forgo them?
In fact, if one parent would like to live chastely and the other insists on them, isn't that the very definition of an abusive relationship?
Which almost anyone would say, one should extricate oneself from, no?

Suffering in My Mixed Marriage

Making a mixed marriage work is almost always a little trickier around the holidays.
I like King's College Choir, he prefers Bing.

And let's not even discuss Robert Goulet, who seemed to want to bludgeon every song into submission with his voice...

The Economics of Broken Marriages

Not for the first time, I am reminded by news from the Synod that the American experience is not the universal experience.
From one of the Italian-language small groups, (in Purgatory, the spiritual stylist getting us gussied up for the Wedding Banquet, presumably an angel? will say as part of our punishment the process, "now break up into small discussion groups," and we almost-but-not-yetters will think to ourselves, if we are subjected to this, what must hell be like?)

in the course of the Circle’s work the necessity emerged of giving particular consideration to two important topics: The first concerns all those women that have suffered violence and witness eloquently respect for life and the courage to take on responsibilities, having children resulting from violence to be born and raised, despite not a few environmental and often family threats.
The second makes appeal for a particular look of care, which must involve ecclesial solidarity, addressed to those spouses – often husbands and fathers – impoverished by separations.

That second is quite a surprise to me, because I thought it was a settled sociological "fact', (at least in the US under "no-fault," and, judging from the chart below, other first world countries,) that it was women who took the biggest economic hit in divorce.
Is this one of those "studies show that...."  factoids which "everyone" "knows" but happens to be untrue?

Oddly in the cases to which I am closest, it is the wife who was physically abusive, and the man who is working a half dozen jobs to support two households - in one instance, the husband is also the primary caregiver for two small children despite not having custody.
(Perhaps I just know great guys?)

 

Pre-Cana, Marriage Prep and the Synod

There has been talk from the Synod on the Family, and editorial comment upon it that we, as a Church, do not offer enough support to couples after they are married.

It has just occurred to me that that is entirely the wrong way to approach the crisis. Yes, it's a good idea, it's important, but it is not the most important thing.

Before is more important, before is the way to go - not before Matrimony, but before engagement.

In fact, before anyone has caught the eye of, or set ones cap for anyone else; before, not just the target has been sighted, but before the target is even determined, perhaps even known.

The Church needs to offer, almost to insist upon VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

Regardless of the eventual station in life, all young people have a vocation, and the idea of commitment and what it entails, and discernment applies to all.

ALL.

And particularly in the case of those whose call is to Matrimony, waiting until you are burningwithloveanddesieforanotherpersonandcanhardlythinkofanythingelse to be given the tools you will need to make a success of your marriage is, not to be indelicate, like a secular couple's waiting until they are in naked bed together to think about contraception.

You can't really "think" about it, YOUR BRAIN ISN'T WORKING.

Marriage Prep/Seminary Prep/Novitiate Prep should start with 15 year olds.

"The Young Messiah"

I often tell people that my husband came to the Faith through his love of history, that objects in the museums attached to most of the California missions, (thank you, St. Junipero!) intrigued him, and led him to want to learn more, what's that thing? (a monstrance,) why did they use it? what do they, I mean you, believe about....?.... what did we believe about any number of things, actually. And he's still asking questions.
Fact is, he came to the Church as much through old movies as anything else.

Between his crush on, (in the I-want-to-grow-up-to-be-HIM! sense,) Richard Burton leading him to see Becket more times than he can count, his fascination with the geo- and curial politics in Shoes of the Fisherman, and a love for Ben-Hur, (especially the Miklós Rózsa score,) that borders on idolatry, a great deal of what he knows, or at least knows enough to be curious to learn more, comes from film.

He has a decent collection on DVD or digital file, and especially around holydays, we are likely to watch some  film or mini-series, or other.
Oh, who am I kidding, we're likely to watch ALL of them, (and yes, I meant to include that silent.)

So it won't surprise me if he is very keen to see the film being made of the Anne Rice book,Out of Egypt.

But I question the title change - I'm not  in Himself's league as an old movie buff, (that's old movie... buff, not old... movie buff,) but even I can't read the new one without thinking of Young Tom Edison, Young Winston, and yes, Young Frankenstein.

Quoting St Paul For His Own Purposes?

No, not the devil.

Himself.
Himself just told me that in one of his epistles, St Paul says, Women, remember - your husband is the boss o' you.

And that, boys and girls, is how domestic violence occurs.

The Most Beautiful Idea in the History of Civilization

Himself is a Knight, and receives the KofC magazine, "Columbia" by snail mail.
I don't think he ever reads it, but when he gives it to me I scan through, usually find one or two things I want to read, and usually also a number of images to tear out for use in collages, etc. with CCD.

This,  an address given at the Vatican last year at a conference on “The Complementarity of Man and Woman,” by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, is well worth your time.

I want to begin our conversation by telling the story of the most beautiful idea in the history of civilization: the idea of the love that brings new life into the world....
When we consider, even in the animal kingdom, how much effort and energy the coming together of male and female takes, in terms of displays, courtship rituals, rivalries and violence, it is astonishing that sexual reproduction ever happened at all. Biologists are still not quite sure why it did....
Since [homo sapiens] stood upright, which constricted the female pelvis, and we had bigger brains, which meant larger heads, human babies had to be born more prematurely, and so needed parental protection for much longer. This made parenting more demanding, the work of two people rather than one. Among most primates, fathers don’t even recognize their children, let alone care for them. Elsewhere in the animal kingdom motherhood is almost universal but fatherhood is rare.
So what emerged along with the human person was the union of the biological mother and father to care for their child...
The most obvious expression of power among alpha males, whether human or primate, is to dominate access to fertile women and thus maximize the passing on of your genes to the next generation. Hence polygamy, which exists in 95 percent of mammal species and 75 percent of cultures known to anthropology.[???!?!??? did not know that]
That is what makes the first chapter of Genesis so revolutionary with its statement that every human being, regardless of race, culture, creed or class is created in the image and likeness of God. We know that in the ancient world it was kings, emperors and pharaohs who were held to be in the image of God. So Genesis is saying that we are all royalty. We each have equal dignity in the kingdom of faith under the sovereignty of God....
there is a deep connection between monotheism and monogamy, just as there is, in the opposite direction, between idolatry and adultery. ...
it is normally the case that the values of a society are those imposed on it by the ruling class. And the ruling class in any hierarchical society stands to gain from promiscuity and polygamy, both of which multiply the chances of one’s genes being handed on to the next generation. So monogamy goes against the normal grain of social change and was a real triumph for the equal dignity of all....
What was new and remarkable in the Hebrew Bible was the idea that love, not just fairness, is the driving principle of the moral life. Three loves. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your might.” “Love your neighbor as yourself.” And, repeated no less than 36 times in the Mosaic books, “Love the stranger because you know what it feels like to be a stranger.” [emphasis supplied] Or to put it another way: just as God created the natural world in love and forgiveness, so we are charged with creating the social world in love and forgiveness. And that love is a flame lit in marriage and the family. Morality is the love between husband and wife, parent and child, extended outward to the world.

Powerful, powerful stuff.

I Wanna Wedding in a BIG Church, Withe BRIDES-maids and FLOWer Girls, a Lotta Ushers in...

It is no secret that fewer and fewer Catholics in this county do NOT want a "church wedding," big or otherwise, any more than they want the other sacraments.
The Nominally Catholic Rundown has the tale of two young couples who have bucked the trend, despite the "barriers" thrown up by the Church.
Putting aside the specifics of their stories for the moment, what really stayed with me after reading it was a nagging question of whether the required marriage prep isn't making for more failed marriages rather than fewer.

Now wait, hear me out - I know it is counter-intuitive, but could it be, nonetheless true?

I'm not speaking of those couples who marry licitly, but of those who, repelled by, or too indolent or impatient to submit to, the processes we ask of them, the 6 months, the FOCUS instruments, the pre-Cana...

I don't know the stats, but I am sure these are they whose marriages have the worst chance of making it, of keeping them together for the long haul.

So aren't they the very ones most in need of the supernatural graces that God endows them with in the sacrament?

Do we or do we not believe that something happens, actually,  objectively, in the administration of sacraments? something beyond our power to understand, much less to deserve?

Grace.

GRACE.

An unmerited sharing in God's own love, His power to love.

The rest of the Church supplies the form, but the man and the woman themselves are the matter, are they not?

And if they can be made to understand and acknowledge and supply the intent - well, isn't the consequent grace they then receive going to be a much greater aid to them than any knowledge they might have gained from the questionnaire that they balked at?

I feel nearly the same about people who ask for baptism for their children, without giving the parish enough hope that they will actually raise their child in the Faith.

Do we or do we not believe in sanctifying grace? a grace that an infant receives and by which he is strengthened, regardless of his ... oh, of his two mothers intentions and beliefs?

I'm sure I'm looking at this whole thing in the wrong way, and am eager to be instructed.

When you get right down to it, what's the difference between pigeons and doves?

(And please don't tell me which one has more white meat....)
The Pope will release 3 pigeons from the steps of the presidential building in Herzagovina, fulfilling the fondest dreams of a Bosnian man.

On June 6, the Pope will answer the prayers of a humble Bosnian mail man and pigeon breeder.

From the steps of Bosnia's presidential building he will release three of Marin Cvitkovic's white pigeons into the Bosnian sky, in a gesture designed to spread his blessing over the troubled country and its three ethnic groups.

"Pigeons represent peace and love," Cvitkovic said. 

As for me and my house...
Himself cannot see a bird without channelling a character from The Producers, encounter a pigeon in the park or the calling card of a crow on the car, and he informs everyone within earshot, "I'm the conci-URGE. My husband used to be the conci-URGE....He's up on the roof with his boids. He keeps boids. Dirty… disgusting… filthy… lice-ridden boids.”
We're both well aware that his routine scrambles what the concierge actually says in the movie, accuracy is really not the point of shared shtick.

Shared Shtick is one of the great pillars of civilization.
My memory may be playing tricks, but I believe I broke up with someone once, primarily over who made better comedies, Mel Brooks or Woody Allen.

I ask you...

Adventures In Progressive Solemnity, Long Form

I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend a Mass in the Extraordinary Form recently.

Generally, although one is offered in my diocese every weekend, the distance and timing, and my own Sunday obligations are such that I instead seek a musicless Mass.

My husband, a late in life convert to Catholicism, was raised by a Mother who, Methodist or not, understood the concept of the "Sunday Obligation;" and at the time he and I arrived at an understanding, we usually attended two services every Sunday morning, (a Mass and whatever protestant church in the area gave promise of the best music,) so he was a very experienced church-goer by the time he was received into the Church.

The first time we attended a Mass with no singing or instrumental music whatsoever, he was taken aback, he had never before encountered any kind of Christian worship which did not include singing.

He hated it!

How could you praise God without bursting into song?

We continued in our nomadic life to seek musical excellence where we could find it, but gradually his hunger for the Eucharist eclipsed his musical preferences, and as he grew to understand the level to which liturgical music has sunk in many places, (Protestant as well as Catholic, I might add,) he embraced the quiet Mass.

We settled for a time in a parish that had a not too bad music program.

When I became involved in a "liturgy committee", (mea culpa,) they were in the process of trying to introduce music into the single quiet Mass in the entire town of five Catholic churches, and the congregants were fighting them tooth and nail.

The PIPs, for the most part, refused to pick up hymnals, and kept their jaws clenched.

Someone on the committee bemoaned the fact, and I repeated the complaint I had heard regarding the choice of hymns, which were puerile, to put it mildly; TPTB had supposed that what was needed as an ice-breaker were "easy" songs, so with no change from week to week, they were asking people to sing the stuff programmed at school Masses.

Over and over.

They knew whom I was quoting, so obviously the PIPs were trying to, forgive the paradox, make their voices heard.

I suggested instead of inserting fairly arbitrary songs, they start with the dialogues and the Our Father, maybe the alleluia before the Gospel.

Blank looks.

You know, (I had probably just learned this phrase,) “progressive solemnity.”

More blank looks.

Like it suggests in Musicam Sacram? A document of Vatican Council?

Oh, well, maybe, they all agreed, even the priests, that that might be the way to go - until they realized that "dialogue" meant singing initiated by the celebrant or other minister.

Nope, they just wanted the people to sing more.

Mind you, all of our priests had fine voices and could either read music very well, (including square-note, I later learned,) or were very good natural musicians who could pick up anything by ear.

But having drunk deeply of the spirits of Vatican, Too, they, (with the agreement or even insistence of their lay colleagues,) were intent upon getting the people to "do" more, not altering their own approach to celebrating Mass.

Eventually I was offered a music/choir director position.

(I had had one years before, while I was still in school, but this was so long ago that it was in the period when the job was picking out 4 hymns that used some of the same words as the readings and posting the numbers. The less said about it, the better.)

In this new position I tried to steer things toward a less preference-centric choice of music, but the deeply-ingrained, three generation long, choir culture; competing ethnic and language needs; and the power structure of rectory/school/religious ed office required constant negotiations.

Returned for a visit after we moved, discovered that some practices I had pressed for for years unsuccessfully had finally been adopted, ( singing the verbum Domini dialogues,) others which I had instituted had been discarded, (the Exultet as written, sung Sequences when called for,) and others which only began under my short tenure, not without push-back, were acknowledged as "the way we've always done it,"(singing the Lectionary psalm.)

The parish where I now find myself has a well-meaning but slap-dash approach to liturgical music and liturgy in general.

I have found other ways to contribute, and enjoy the lowest and earliest of Sunday

Since I am no longer responsible, or even much effected by any musical planning, for over three years I have thought of myself as taking R & R from the front lines of the Liturgy Police Action, (it's not a war!)

.............................

When I've worked in a parish setting, TPTB were always slightly Latin-phobic, so obviously only Ordinary Form for Mass or LotH. Convincing them that what they wanted to sing, or were accustomed to sing weren't necessarily the most important things to sing, and that the Church actually gave us guidance on this, (apart from what our diocesan OoW put out,) was like pulling teeth.

Instead of Progressive Solemnity, we were fortunate to even be able to achieve a sort of Regressive Triviality.

I have taken part in Extraordinary Form Masses with great joy, at Colloquia and when I have found myself in the environs of St John Cantius, or had the opportunity to attend one for which Jenny Donelson's schola sang; and I have even been happy to have the chance to hear the traditional Mass when neither the priest nor the musicians, nor we faithful in the pews seemed very sure of who should do what when.

I even accidentally attended Mass at a schismatic chapel, before I knew there were such people and places, and I give thanks for, and "enjoyed" that.

I have never had any musical responsibilities at these, (other than singing as told at CMAA functions,) so never thought much about what is supposed to be done.

I generally position myself near someone who seem confident of his postures and gestures, whose hand missal looks well-loved, and copy him.

But I have realized that there is very little consistency from place to place.

(The first clue that I had was the PBC notation about "IF the confiteor is said again, turn to pg 25," or some such.)

Some places one priest reads the Lesson and Gospel in English while another reads them quietly in Latin, others the vernacular follows the "real" scripture. Some places the PIPs kneel for the entire time except the Gospel and homily. Some everyone recites the Gloria along with the celebrant. One priest stopped in mid-Pater noster to silence the people who were singing along with him, another practically conducted us to sing along.

I was given to understand that this is all because, in the day, there really were no rubrics for the people.

But the rubrics for the musicians are pretty clear, I had thought, especially the distinctions between solemn, sung and read Mass, a la Musica Sacra.

But even these seem to be a source of confusion.

The organist at one parish told me she and her choir "just do what Father wants," and there are four different "Fathers" who might show up on a moments notice.

The Mass I attended Sunday was lovely, and profoundly prayerful.

I found myself entering into it such that I was saved from playing Liturgy Scorekeeper, (a more passive role that Liturgy Police,) no ticking off boxes, wondering why so and so did such and such.

It was only after Mass that I thought, hmmm, 2 Latin motets and one English anthem, or that was nice, that little organ filler, sounds like Rossini, and then repeat the anthem, or, gee, only one voice to a part, none of them very strong but sweet polyphony, or wait a minute, they only sang some of the Gregorian Ordinary, and we all spoke the rest together, didn't we?

It all seemed, it felt appropriate.

Were they, perhaps, applying principles of progressive solemnity from Musicam Sacram to the EF, taken advantage of the provision for varying "degrees" of sung Mass?

And why shouldn't they?

That might sound flip, or combative, but it's really not.

IRL I have no access to anyone particularly knowledgeable about this, and I thank God every day for Those InterWebs.

But the internet is full of Facts that Everybody Knows - that aren't true.

And there often seem to be differences of opinion as to what pronouncements are descriptive and what prescriptive.

I thought I had learned that Musicam Sacram does not apply to the EF, (though of course there are some who try to insist it doesn't apply to the Novus Ordo... who, pray tell, would they be?)

I was startled to learn, (but I am ignorant - people who keep up on these things also seemed startled to learn,) in the comment box of this several month old thread at New Liturgical Movement, which addresses these very questions, that a book of rubrics for the old Mass is available online. The date of publication is 1960, but would it be in effect for the 1962 Missal?

A lot of the conversation there of course is simply opinion - leaned, informed opinion, but not really helpful for those who might be preparing sing half take baby steps in preparing music for liturgy.

It doesn't matter to me right now so much what the Church should have asked of us as what She does ask.

I want to know what's what, and what ought to be, and what ought not -- because I have a premonition, or at least a hope, that I might need to know.

What “legitimate diversity” is there in the Extraordinary Form?

What Were Those Trees?

One of the silly delights of falling more deeply in love, after you are already "in love," is in discovering similarities in your differences.
(As an example of this, Himself and I the first time we dined out on chicken acted as if we'd discovered the cure for the common cold, ooh, I like white meat and you like dark, yes, but, not only is that a handy complementarity when apportioning the bird, we seemed to consume our food at exactly the same rate!!!!! the same, shamefully rapid, rate.....)

My Father used to like to fib that he knew only two flowers, roses and sweet william - he stubbornly named any non-Rose bloom, ah - sweet william! 

On our honeymoon I learned Himself calls all, not merely flowers, all PLANTS regardless of size, type, "zinnia."

I just realized that this is more or less when we were in England, and i'm thinking I ought to finally find out what those gorgeous flowering trees were - one did not pass a churchyard or walk down a suburban street, or wander in a park that wasn't resplendent with one.
I asked him if he knew, but i don't care what he said - these were not zinnia, (I kinda hate yellow flowers.)

These were EVERYWHERE!
And they were GORGEOUS! rich, complex rose and pink and blush colors, so lush with blossoms that until you got very close they seemed to have no foliage.
We asked several people, different days, different towns - alas, for a nation of avid gardeners. no one we met seemed to know.

What's blooming there now?
I search the web looking for their picture, their name...

Were they simply apple?
Not that apple isn't a fine thing for them to be.
Mabe a Judas tree......