The Three Graces

Not, not those!

I think I shall always be bothered by the imprecision of Pope Francis' words, for as long as his pontificate persists. The sound bites often seem Hallmark-ish, ("Hallmawkish"?) and I think it behooves a spiritual leader to take note of common words more specific meaning within his particular "faith tradition."
(It's why I had such a visceral reaction to being asked to sing Ruth Duck's As a Fire Is Meant For Burning.... really??!?#?? NOT to "preach our creeds"?)
Yes, words mean different things in different contexts, but as a Catholic, in the context of catechesis, (which homiletics is,) you wouldn't, for instance, talk about a skanky ballet dancer as being "graceful."
So Francis' talk of the Gospels at the Chrism Mass...

"A single word - Gospel - that, even as it is spoken, becomes truth, brimming with joy and mercy. We should never attempt to separate these three graces of the Gospel: its truth, which is non-negotiable; its mercy, which is unconditional and offered to all sinners; and its joy, which is personal and open to everyone,"

...seems off to me.
Because yes, those three things are sharing in God's love, freely given (the simplest definition of Grace,) but, and pardon me for putting words in the Holy Father's mouth, but I wonder if what he really meant was a reference to the Theological Virtues, which do indeed seem to correlate with what he called "graces."
Because holding on to Truth is the essence of having Faith, our confident Hope cannot but fill us with Joy, and the granting of Mercy to others, (and ourselves!) is the highest good of Love in Action, (the way I describe Love/Charity/Christian Love to my religious education kiddos.)
And, of course, what sets the Theological Virtues apart is that they cannot be obtained by human effort, but are infused by God into a person freely given, (and in need of unwrapping, as I like to tell them.)

(Is it so wrong that on the cusp of Papa Ratz's birthday, at this, as at nearly every instance in which Francis says something that starts to make sense to me and cuae me to think in a new way, my wish is to know how his predecessor would have teased out the theme and crafted it into some all but perfect gem of theology for the blundering but trying, like me? Ah, well, if wishes were horses....)

"Malaphor"

I have learned a new word.
(I have never told a dear friend that one of her favorite expressions, "you just watch, he'll fold like a ten cent cookie" doesn't seem to mean anything. Not that I've ever eaten a ten cent cookie. Although Save-A-Lot has some terrific crunchy, buttery chocolate chip cookies right now that work out to about that....)
(But since they're self-proclaimedly "crunchy" they, um.... won't fold.)

I Am Not "They"

I have only just noticed that Facebook, (where I am reading, sharing and liking but not posting for lent,) uses plural pronouns for me.
F'rinstance, "XXX changed their profile picture."
Is that because I needed to select from some long list of possibilities what "gender" I am currently "choosing"?
I am singular and female, but come April perhaps I'll do something silly - I've always liked the sometime-pretentious use of "one,"  or "ones" subbing for I/me/mymine... is that an option on FB?

I mean, now that feels trumps reals, and words have ceased to have meaning...

 

Notes From a Dying Tablet

It's old, it was dirt cheap, and it's starting to malfunction so frequently, and freeze requiring restarts thats it is almost useless.
So, I'm going through everything actually on it, rather than preserved for posterity somewhere in the ether, and I am at a loss - why did I once think it necessary to remember that Sheldon Cooper's proposed nicknames for Amy Farrah Fowler included Princess Corncob, Gollum, and Fester?

Please Stop Talking About "Changing Church Discipline"

A very worthwhile piece in the Catholic Herald on the Amorous Letitia wars...

... but this:

 "But the issue which grabbed most attention was the possibility that Pope Francis might change the discipline on Communion for the divorced and remarried,"

is compounding what I think is a terrible error in much of the reporting on the issue.

Is it merely Church "discipline" that sacramental marriage is indissoluble?
Is it merely Church "discipline" that for a married person to have sexual relations with a person other than ones sacramental spouse is adultery?
Is it merely Church "discipline" that adultery is a grave sin?
Is it merely Church "discipline" that receiving Communion when in state of grave sin endangers ones immortal soul even further, compounding the sin?
Is it merely Church "discipline" that those who are in a state of mortal sin with no intention of amendment of life can not be admitted to Communion?

"Discipline"?

Does Catholicism Need a Whoopi Goldberg...

... to explain, yeah, but he's not a 'martyr-martyr' ?

Catholic Cultural Currents, and Words

What does it mean to "conserve," to wish to "conserve"?
Could we say that sometimes the opposite of "conservative" is "neglectful" or even "destructive"?
If you disparage others as "scrupulous," are you saying it's better to be "negligent"?
Is the opposite of "nostalgia-hankering" perhaps "novelty-chasing" or "trend-infatuated"?

If you insist on setting yourself apart from those you deride as "pro-life," what does that make you? How would you like to identify yourself, vis a vis your position on "life"?

And what does it say about a Catholic who

When you speak of opinions outsiders may have of the Church, do you say, "They are known for the...." when it is aspects which you condemn or disavow, but ask "What do they say about us now?" (The way in '50s sitcoms when Junior drove Mom crazy she'd ask Dad, "What do you think YOUR son just did?")

Just wondering....
As Santayana said, or at least should have, 

Those who fail to appreciate history are doomed to be embarrassed when they look back on the present.

The Evolution of Words

Of course English is a living language, definitions of pre-existing words may multiply as need arises.

"Stylist" was not, I suppose, a recognized profession until recent decades, and so "style", as a verb, could have meant, variously, to "call oneself" or to arrange things to look attractive.

Now "style, v.", can mean "to remind a client that even after she has put on pants or a skirt her ensemble isn't really complete until she adds a shirt or something."

"Empower" and "dignity" seem similarly to have.... grown, as words.

I think we may have Thelma and Louise to thank for some of that.
Wasn't it the "transformative violence" of that film that sanctioned women acting as stupid and irresponsible as some men always have in accord with the terms of a patr- living life on their own terms rather than those of a patriarchal society?

And what is driving off a cliff if not "death with dignity"?

As long as it's done in a cool car.
In a beater mini-van it would just be sad...

"An Ashley By Any Other Name"

I won't bore you with a map of the wormhole down which... no, one falls down rabbit holes, right? wormholes are more a matter of falling through, I think.... there. I've done it again.
Start over.
I won't go into how I ended up here, (thank you, Time Suck Yclept Interwebz), but because several young couples in my family are going through the minefield of whatever shall we name junior? and all the juniors so far have been girls, I found it arresting.
Large family, names have good and fairly immediate associations, but also, of course, unpleasant one; names are taken or over-taken; names create awkward monograms; names have too few or too many syllables for euphony; names sound too indicative of one nationality or another, (sometimes one appropriately enough claimed); names are oocky.
(That last is an actual, quoted appraisal of one suggestion.)
Add in some specific familial... I won't say requirements, but no one has defied certain expectations for generations... customs having to do with eldest offspring being named after a parent and bequests of purely sentimental value being given along with the name.
And smart aleck relatives who favor vaguely insulting or gross nicknames for pets and children.

Absent, yes, I will say sadly absent, from the negotiations is any thought of honoring ancestors, (other than in that one instance mentioned,) or the Faith.
This saddens me.
No thought of patronal saints, or looking to the liturgical calendar.

And with the resurgence of "old-fashioned" names for girls, (flowers, or Old Testament heroines,) there has been no trendy rise of virtue names, has there?
Well, I suppose modesty and constancy are no longer considered virtues, and "Purity" would just be tempting fate...

But there is an irony to the above linked piece from 1985, to a degree that would probably shock the author were she alive - she wondered why "pink" children, girls, were being given names that "mask their gender."
If only she had known! By 2016 we would have been past such creaky notions, that the options for an infant's gender were binary! What, only "boys" and "girls"?
What an antiquated notion!
Not only are there dozens of conceivable genders, being "fluid" in ones gender is a gender in and of itself!

But perhaps most important of all, masculinity or femininity is hardly something parents, or even medical personnel can tell, or would dare to assume just from looking at the little, squalling, red thing.

Brave New Relativistic World that has such creatures beings in it, we can't call them "creatures" because that would imply something or Someone created them, and that surely can't be right...

"Theology needs to 'catch up' with gestures"?

I do not pretend for a moment to have any special insight into the relationship between the Church and the Anglican communion, or what the schism caused by Henry VIII's desire for a male heir and a woman who was not his wife entailed, or how any of this confirms or confuses the Ordinariate.

But I am having great difficulty wrapping my mind around the idea of theology - that is, received and discerned truths about God, His wishes, and mankind's relationship to Him and to those wishes - conforming itself to the gestures made by churchmen, rather than the other way 'round.

Fr Tony recalls that the documents of the Second Vatican Council recognized those elements of the Church which exist beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church, adding that recent ecumenical efforts have been looking at the implications of that statement in the search for reciprocal recognition of ministry.
While he notes that such recognition is still not fully possible, he cites many gestures to show a growing respect and recognition of the ministry exercised by Anglican bishops. In particular he recalls the gesture of Pope Paul VI, 50 years ago, of giving his own episcopal ring to the Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey. Theology, Fr Tony says, “needs to catch up” and find the “theological underpinnings to these gestures”.
He adds “I think it’s true to say we don’t use the language of ‘null and void’ any more” as that’s “clearly not what is spoken by the gestures, generosity, and warmth which we see time and time again”.

Just because one does not use certain language because it will not advance ones cause does not make that language inaccurate, does it?
I suppose "imaginary" and "non-existent" are equally injudicious.... 

AMORIS LÆTITIA - of Content, Conjugality and Conjunctions

So, at long last... what?
The post-synodal exhortation from the Synod on the Family has finally been released and it contains, well, not very much.
Rules are rules, and reality is reality, and Truth is Truth - and we should all be kinder to other people.

My only quibble (well, apart from Amoris Laetitia being released in the annoying PDF format, rather than a nice web page)?

A conjunction.

A short, solitary little word, (emphasis supplied.)

I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street.”

It's about that "but."*
Surely Pope Francis cannot be saying that he prefers making statements to the Faithful which do leave room for confusion?
(That ain't merciful.)
Surely he meant to say, "I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion AND SO I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness."
Because it is precisely the presence of this "room for confusion," in what they have been told, what they have been exposed to, what they have seen, what the world teaches them, that allows us who, (yes, I agree with Anne Frank,) are basically good to be lured into actions that are basically sinful.

It is not just weakness, it's believing that regardless of circumstances or consequences  I "deserve to be happy,"  and the drumbeat of It's no big deal, it's no big deal, it's no big deal, that leaves me in the situation where I need the Church's help to find goodness.
The Good Shepherd does not come out to join me in the wilderness, but to disentangle me from the brambles and sling me over His shoulder and carry me home, and the good shepherd knows it is his job, (note the lower case "g", "s" and "h",) to do likewise.

*(And no, it's not a big "but", Peewee.)

Couture Confus et Erroné

(Why no, I can't speak French. I do know what all those words mean, but whethe they make a coherent phrase is a mystery to me. And speaking of mysteries...)

As so often, I am confused by fashion and almost as often, by fashion terminology, but when did a dress that barely hits he bottom of the kneecap become a "midi dress"?

The range of which the knee is the "mid"-point, even if the floor is the measure of "maxi"-ness, would put the other end of the spectrum gynecologist's territory-adjacent.

Which, now that I think of it, describes quite a bit of clothing I see.
Ah.
Never mind, carry on.

Is That Really the Spin Being Put On the Pope's Long Awaited Exhortation?

(For instance:)
The writer(s?) here.
Yes, critique and exegesis has already begun on a document some of the commentariat may not even have seen.
What did the Pope say? Why, of course, being right-minded he said exactly what we wanted him to say, what we would have said were we pope! It may seem otherwise, but this is why what he said means what we say it says rather than what the words might indicate to someone less right-minded!

But the same could go for the commentary on the commentary. (Or do I mean the commentary on the commentary on the commentary? They don't call it "spin" for nothing.)

This agitation might indicate that the post-synodal exhortation will not contain any doctrinal novelties or breaches. Rather, the text will focus on pastoral recommendations for the integration of the divorced-and-remarried.
This agitation was evident in the three articles published during the last week.
One article is by Enzo Bianchi, a layman who in 1965 established the Ecumenical Monastic Community of Bose in Italy. Brother Bianchi wrote a March 14 commentary in L’Osservatore Romano about the gospel account of the woman caught in adultery.
In general the commentary gave an ordinary interpretation of the text. But at its very end, Brother Bianchi stressed that “Jesus did not condemn her, because God does not condemn, but he gave her the possibility to change with his act of mercy.”
Brother Bianchi added that the Gospel “does not say that she changed her life, that she converted or that she became a disciple of Jesus. We just know that God forgave her through Jesus and delivered her to freedom, so that she could return to life.”
Vatican internal observers have interpreted this phrasing as an open door to the reception of Communion by Catholics who have divorced-and-remarried. A source told CNA March 22, “Brother Bianchi emphasizes God’s forgiveness, no matter what she will actually do,” as if “Communion might be given, no matter what you had done.”

Now, I can't read the original Italian, and the tense of the verbs is paramount to understanding this.
But it seems to me that no one could argue with what the good brother is said to have said.
let me repeat:

A source told CNA March 22, “Brother Bianchi emphasizes God’s forgiveness, no matter what she will actually do,” as if “Communion might be given, no matter what you had done.”

Who would disagree with that, of COURSE it might be! That is the entire point of God's mercy!
No matter what you had done He would forgive you!
What He won't condone is what you WILL do.
And that is clear in the story of the woman taken in adultery.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "Has no one condemned you? then neither will I. Now get back to bed work, you knucklehead, those tricks aren't going to turn themselves!"

No, as Brother Bianchi is reported and translated to have said, (emphasis supplied,)

 "God forgave her through Jesus and delivered her to freedom, so that she could return to life."

She could, though she might not have.
We don't know if she returned the "The Life," or to Life, the choice was hers, because Free Will. 
Scripture is silent on this point, just as on so much else. We don't know if the Dutiful Son ever joined in the Welcome Home festivities when the Prodigal returned. We don't know if the Rich Young Man thought about his riches for a while, and how much he would miss them, and then chucked them to follow the Lord. We don't know if the Centurion went on to some other assignment, eventuallyw went back to Rome, years later heard about this cult coming out of Palestine, realized its import and gave up all to be a follower of Christ.

And you know what, it's good that we don't.

Because if we don't know the end of the story, it's easier to understand that it's our story, that the ending is still up to us, and that God leaves it that way.

Because, um.... free will.

Is the Old Testament the Story of God's People's Adolescence?

Doing some reading on theodicy, (eeeeew! who's she think she is, Doctor Bloody Bronowski?) and came across some snotty mockery of Christianity, saying something along the lines of, Apparently church types think God was real, real, real mad at us so He killed Jesus and then He got nicer to us, 'cause that calmed Him down.

But what suddenly jumped out at me was a memory of a documentary I saw on tv, don't recall if the overall subject was human facial expressions, or the adolescent brain, but whichever it was, I think work by Deborah A. Yurgelun-Todd and William D.S. Killgore or something like this was the source of a tidbit about teenagers, that really stuck me at the time, and has stuck with me.

The adolescent brain, it seems, reads facial expressions in a way that allows for their frequent misinterpretation.
For instance, "fear", such as one might see registered on Mom and Dad's faces when junior has done something REALLY stupid and REALLY dangerous is misperceived as "anger."
(I certainly knew many kids who complained that "my mom is always mad at me, she hates me..." when that was clearly not the case. I, of course, was never so mistaken ;oP)

The Old Testament is full of Angry Father God, right?
But maybe it just seems that way because of the inadequacy of humanity's language to fully express God's inspired word, maybe what it's really full of is this and we're just too dumb in our teenage angst to see it...

Dad whose sorrow and fear for me only looked like anger....
When all the while he was searching the horizon for my return, ready, even when I am still a long way off to catch sight of me, and filled with compassion to run to me, embrace me  and kiss me. He'll stop me when I have hardly begun, Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be-- and order that I be adorned in the finest robe and jewels and sandals on my feet, and a groaning board prepared . He will celebrate with a feast because his dumb kid was dead, and has come to life again;was lost, and has been found.

 

He wasn't angry at all.

Bad Words, and Our Dainty Sensibilites

The word "genocide" has long had the United States clutching its pearls.

"Oh, Google - I Think I'll Miss Your Inept Suggestions As To What Pages Might ContainWhat I'm Looking For Most Of All...."

I'm serious.
I can't even remember what I sought, but this page SOOOO had nothing to do with it.
But, dove into the wormhole, wondered why page popped up with my search terms, read further to try to ascertain, became distracted by goofy conversation, forgot what I was looking for, and came across a comic gem.

As one does.

Okay, I am pro-life, but I have an ENORMOUS problem with this article. First of all, the generalization that it's only women who have abortions is false.
Actually, NOT ONLY WOMEN GET ABORTIONS. Trans-men get abortions. People of all types that don't fit into the normative "woman" gender category get abortions.

Thank you, Humpty-Dumpty.

"Disordered Affections" and the Politics of Victimhood and What's Wrong With Me?

So far as I have been able to determine, no nearby church, (we are a one-car household in an area with minimal public transportation, so "nearby" is not a commendation to be dismissed lightly,) is offering special Adoration for the "23 Hours of Mercy," or even confession at any other than the regular times.
So during Mass this morning, I was considering engaging in that... thing? I don't want to dignify it by calling it a "practice" ...... where I don't focus on anything much intellectually, but let the Liturgy kinda wash over me. (This can be very spiritually rewarding, don't knock it till you've tried it.)
Sometimes a word or a phrase will suddenly be illuminated so that it is thrown into relief, and observed from a slightly different angle, there may be some insight to be gained.
But strangely, especially for Lent, it wasn't penitence and mercy that called out to me, per se - it was solidarity with other sinners, [good, so far!] and yes, a great, big helping of, "oh, for the love of pete, stop whining, you particular bunch of sinners, everyone else has to deal with that too, me and everyone else, YOU'RE NOT SO SPECIAL, [bad.]

It's odd, because such an attitude as I have is, the exact opposite of what we call "compassion," right?
The ability to willingly suffer with someone else?
And yet my actual thoughts are, don't you get it, you idiots? we all experience the exact same thing, so if you really believe that's somehow "suffering," we're all already suffering with you!

What in the liturgy prompted such unChristian thought?
It started early.
Opening collect....
We pray, O Lord, that we may be constantly drawn away from unruly desires...

"Unruly"? As in "boisterous"? Who're you callin'..... Oh, wait, no, as in requiring some effort to get them in line, subdue them, be their master rather than lave. Oh, good. I'll use that at Sunday school - we all have temptations to tame. Lions, animal analogies appeal to this bunch, I'll -
And my thought are off to the races and instead of contemplating and being in the moment and letting, or at least hoping for something holy to "wash" over me, I am elsewhere. Get your head back in the game, Scelata, at least TRY to listen to -
Preface....
You have given Your children a sacred time for the renewing and purifying of their hearts, that, freed from disordered affections...
Yes.
YES. 
We all have affections, attractions, desires, temptations - not "needs" but "wants" that are "disordered."
And some of them are objectively so.
But I know it's the D word, not the O word that's giving the Professionally Aggrieved and the Highly Ranked Amateur Umbrage Takers a hissy, so that's what I'm dealing with.
Nobody's looking for a special way to insult you, LGBTQDW activist, I promise....

And by the time my thoughts get this far, I am dropping to my knees, having barely regained mindful consciousness in time to join in the sanctus....

I just wish.... I just wish before people began wearing their offendedness like a backstage pass, especially as it regards language, they would actually examine that which has them miffed, what its context is, how else and how fairly it is applied, and what its usage is in the realm where they find it.

One advantage a "dead" language has for official utterance is that something precise and completely lacking in opprobrium is not easily going to suddenly drift into "you can't say that anymore!" territory.
(I'm looking at you, "thug," "handicapped," and "whore.")

Is it my imagination, or are 90% of Jewish girls...

Is it my imagination, or are 90% of Jewish girls on the Interwebs named Shoshana, 90% of the Catholic girls named Shannon, and 90% of the Baptist girls named either Shania or Shaniqua? (I understand the former is  singer, the latter a song.)

What's current in pagan and wiccan circles?
What's the atheist parents' name of choice for girls?

If I were an atheist, I'd name a child "Whatever."

The Enemy of My Enemy's Enemy's Enemy Is My... SQUIRREL!!!! And what in the world is "Sutdugoo"?

I imagine we have all been embarrassed by finding ourselves in agreement with someone whom we find loathsome - or lest you think I am attacking anyone ad hominem, whose ideas, words, opinions, attitudes, or actions we find loathsome.

And of course, the interwebs are just that, a web, a tangle, a great time-sucking morass of claims, counter-claims, self-contradictions - after a bit, of trying to understand the scorecard, I just get distracted.

I'm weak minded that way.

What brought on my present crisis of faith in my own judgement and "alliances" is two-fold. Or maybe three?

First there is the absurd vortex of militant feminism, militant islam, militant atheism  or anti-christian sentiment, (never can quite make up my mind,) and militant misogyny.
I'm not going to link to any of these loonies, suffice to say I offered sympathy to someone whose attacker seemed either evil or unhinged, (mocking, laughing and singing jovially about the death by suicide of a sibling,) as caught on video.
Supporters of that attacker claim that attacker was attacked via tweet by an attacker linking a satirical attack on the first attacker who is therefore now an attackee and also another attackee, both of which attackees are apparently frequent attackers themselves, and both actual persons identifiable in the satire but only one of whom the supporters of the initial attacker feels should be spared attack, as they don't like the other attackee in the satire, so tough beans for him.
Got that?

"Does [attacker via tweet] have any conception of just how much abuse [persons] like [attacker who mocked suicide of relative of soon-to-be-an-attacker-himself] get?"

Imagine that.
People who behave badly experience retaliation.
Because it's all a matter of the new hobby that's sweeping the globe! It's  SUTDUGOO, ("Selective Umbrage-Taking Dependant Upon Gored Ox's Ownership.)

Oh, I said two- or three-fold, didn't I?
Well, I've gone on long enough for now.