Wednesday, March 27, 2024

From A Franciscan Calendar



I've been cleaning out some old materials (for garbage or recycling), and I came across a 2023 Franciscan Calendar.

So before it joins the recycling pile, here are some of the quotations.

Lord, help me to live this day, quietly, easily. To lean upon thy great strength, trustfully, restfully. To waiyt for the unfolding of Thy will, patiently, serenely. To meet others, peacefully, joyously. To face tomorrow, confidently, courageously. - St. Francis of Assisi

It was easy to love God in all that is beautiful. The lessons of deeper knowledge, though, instructed me to embrace God in all things. - St. Francis of Assisi

Those who are called to the table of the Lord must glow with brightness. - St. John Capistrano

Whenever the divine favor chooses someone to receive a special grace, to to accept a lofty vocation, God adorns the person with all the gifts of the Spirit neede to fulfill the task at hand. - St. Bernardine of Siena

Actions speak louder than words; let your words teach and your actions speak. - St. Anthony of Padua

Always go forward and never turn back. - St. Junipero Serra

Loving one another with the charity of Christ, let the love you have in your hearts be shown outwardly in your deeds. - St. Clare of Assisi

Keep a clear eye toward life's end. Do not forget your purpose and destiny as God's creature. - St. Francis of Assisi

God requires that we assist the animals when they need our help. Each being (human or creature) has the same right of protection. - St. Francis of Assisi

Let us make the best use of the precious moments and do all in our power for His dear sake and for His greater honor and glory. - St. Marianne Cope

The journey is essential to the dream. - St. Francis of Assisi

Pax et bonum

Monday, March 25, 2024

Reading Woes



Okay, I've set all sorts of reading goals, and I'm on my way to complete them for this year.

But I also feel a desire to read works recommended by others as books I should read. Joseph Pearce, in his book Literature: What Every Catholic Should Know, includes a list of "Great Works of Literature Every Catholic Should Know".

I've actually read 60 of them, and parts of several others. I will likely read some of the the others. But to be honest, I simply don't like the works of some writers on his list. Flannery O'Connor is the one who stands out. I find her painful to read. I also don't particularly like Walker Percy's books. And though I've read several  of Jane Austen's novels, I, frankly, find her kind of boring.

Sigh.

I am an intellectual slug.

Brandon Vogt also has a great list of more than 100 titles ("Best Catholic Books of All Timer"). Alas, I have read only 24 of those. He has a subsequent list ("More of the Best Catholic Books"). I've read just 8 of them, most of which overlap with Pearce's list.

I am at the point in my life when I struggle to read some of the more "difficult" works. Some of the theological and classical works are sometimes difficult for me to slog through.

I like mysteries and sometimes lighter fare. I like classical American novels. I like Dickens. I like the poetry of Dickinson and Frost. I like haiku and clerihews and light verse. I like the works of  Louis de Wohl. I like short essays. I like history and biography. I like some fantasy and science fiction.

So maybe my reading will be more eclectic.  

Pax et bonum

Sunday, March 24, 2024

The First Ten Popes


1. St. Peter (33-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)

St. Peter was, of course, Simon Peter, one of the Apostles.

St. Linus may have been the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 - though that is not confirmed.

St. Clement was a follower of St. Peter, and may be the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 

Pax et bonum

Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Don't Bother Reading This Book



I recently visited our local Christian bookstore. As I always do when I go there I checked out the bookcase featuring local authors. 

I spotted Seaside Journey's of Faith by Jay Diedreck. I had read and enjoyed (though with reservations) his first book, Klem Watercrest, The Lighthouse Keeper, so I thought I'd give this one a try.

This book offered more of the same in terms of nice characters trying to live as faithful people. The plot was okay, though predictable.  

But, alas, the flaws of the first book were even more pronounced in this self-publishing effort.

The paragraph indents were weird, as if he put in the wrong coding or kept hitting Tab. He repeatedly used the wrong/misspelled names and words - "Santa and Mrs. Clause" when it should have been "Claus," naming a girl "Francis" instead of the feminine form "Frances," referring to Charles Dickens as "Dickinson," multiple instances of "addenda" used for "agenda," "instances of "complements" used when he meant "compliments," talking about a store "isle" when he meant "aisle,." he repeatedly used "neckless" when he meant "necklace," a groom was described as wearing a "cumber bum" instead of a "cummerbund," etc. Sadly, there are many additional examples. The more I read, the more the former editor in me began to develop a nervous tic.

Those flaws might have been overcome if the writing had been better. Alas, it was not. It was decidedly amateurish, consistently stiff and awkward. And the dialogue was more often than not unnatural and frequently unintentionally laughable. 

Sigh.

Many well-meaning Christian movies are flawed. Ditto for many well-meaning Christian novels. 

But this book did not rise to even their flawed level. 

Diedreck may be a wonderful human being, a nice, faith-filled person like some of his characters. But as a writer he needed a good editor! 

I do not recommend this novel, and I no longer feel tempted to read any of his other books.

Pax et bonum

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

Are Human Embryos Human Beings?


Are Human Embryos Human Beings? 
National Review 
March 18,2024 
By Robert P. George 

Whether human embryos are human beings is a question resolved by human embryology and developrnental biology. 

Among the constants in hurnan history is this: When people want to justify killing, enslaving, or otherwise abusing a class of their fellow human beings, they first dehumanize them. I suspect that the dehumanization of the victims is typically meant not only to persuade others to go along or look tlre other way; it is also to convince the dehumanizers themselves. 

As a matter of scientifically demonstrable fact, human embryos, no less than human fetuses, infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, and adults, are human beings - living members of the species Homo sapiens. Those words - "embryo," "infant," "adolescent," and so forth - do not name different kinds of entities. They name the same kind of entity (a living member of the human species, a human being, like you or me) at different stages of development. 

But some today, for various reasons, want to justify the deliberate killing of human beings at early stages of their development - the embryonic, fetal, even infant stages. And some want to justify the deliberate killing of people in certain conditions - those suffering, for example, from cognitive disabilities or severe dementias. So, as usual, they are at pains to deny that the victims are human. They insist that those of whom they want to license the killing are "nonhuman,n' or "subhuman," or "prehuman," or "not fully human," or whatever. 

And so, Washington Post columnist and editor Ruth Marcus, someone I like and respect despite our deep differences on moral and political issues, set out in a recent column to show that I'm wrong to say that human beings in the embryonic stage of development are in fact human beings. She invites her readers to reason backward: lf human embryos were human beings, then things we (liberal readers of the Washington Post) believe, things we want to be true, things that are really important to us, would be false. But we - somehow - just know that they're not false' Elective abortion is a woman's right, and a regime of legal and widely available abortion is an enlightened and humane policy, so . . . embryos must not be human beings. 

More on Pro-Life 

It's that constant in human history again: Those whom others would kill or license the killing of, they first dehumanize. 

My friend Ruth's denial that human embryos and fetuses are human beings is a flat denial of science. lt's true that gametes - sperm and egg - are not human beings. They are both genetically and functionally parts of other organisms - a man and a woman. But when they join, the resulting embryo has a new and complete genome of its own. More important, the embryo does not function as a mere part of anyone. He or she - for in humans, sex is established from the start - functions as a whole organism. Like infants, toddlers, or teens, embryos and fetuses will - unless prevented by disease, violence, lack of nutrition or warmth, etc. - develop by an internally directed and gapless process into later stages of the life cycle of a human being. They will do so with their unity, determinateness, and identity intact. 

What is the alternative? Since embryos are not inanimate, like minerals, but alive, each must be either a whole organism or part of one. But a part of which organism? The only candidates would be the man and woman who produced the gametes, but again, embryos are genetically and functionally distinct from both - as distinct as any children from their parents. So, embryos must be whole organisms. But any whole organism belongs to some species - and which could it be in this case, if not Homo sapriens? Embryos have the same (in the typical case) 46 chromosomes as newborn humans, embodying the same program, unfolding along the same trajectory: infant, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric. So, embryos can only be whole organisms of the human kind. Every textbook of human embryology and developmental biology confirms it. There is no scientific controversy about it. 

Thus, Ruth Marcus, for example, is the same whole, distinct, self-integrating human organism who was, at earlier stages, the adolescent Ruth, the child Ruth, the infant Ruth, the fetal Ruth, and, at the very beginning, the embryonic Ruth Marcus. Things happened - some of lasting significance - to the individual who is now the adult Ruth Marcus when she was an embryo and a fetus, just as some life-shaping things happened to her in adolescence, childhood, and infancy. The adult Ruth Marcus is biologically continuous with the embryonic Ruth Marcus. She is numerically identical to the embryonic Ruth Marcus. That is why IVF pioneer Dr. Robert Edwards, producer of the first "test-tube baby," recalling Louise Brown as an embryo in a petri dish, was not talking gibberish when he said at her birth: "She was beautiful then and she is beautiful now." 

Edwards went on to speak with perfect scientific accuracy of the embryonic Louise Brown as "a microscopic human being - one in its very earliest stages of development." As he and a co-author put it, the embryonic human being is "passing through a critical period in its life of great exploration: it becomes magnificently organized, switching on its own biochemistry, increasing in size, and preparing itself quickly for implantation in the womb." What they describe is the self-integration and internally directed process of development that I mentioned a moment ago. 

The bottom line is a fact that my friend Ruth is desperate to resist: Embryos and fetuses do not "gradual ly" become human beings. That ls unscientific gibberish. Our development to adulthood is gradual, to be sure, but we come into existence as human beings - whole living members of the species Homo sapiens - and develop as (not info) human beings. Embryonic and fetal human beings differ from infant human beings in many ways. But then infants differ dramatically from adults. None differ in kind, as humans do from nonhumans. 

Now, one might ask: Since Ruth is so desperate for abortion to be right - and a right * why does she not just say that embryos and fetuses are human beings, but not yet "persons" - that is, not yet beings with dignity or rights equal to yours and mine? That is exactly what sophisticated pro-choice philosophers and bioethicists say, including my famously candid and consistent Princeton colleague, Peter $inger. I suspect that there are two reasons. 

First, the logic of this view leaves too many human beings out. As Singer makes clear, if embryos and fetuses are not persons, it must be because they cannot, here and now, exercise certain mental powers such as self-awareness. But then neither can infants. So, infants wouldn't be persons either, and infanticide, no less than abortion, would be morally acceptable - a conclusion Singer embraces. So, a couple could legitimately conceive a child and give birth to it for the purpose of, say, harvesting vital organs to save the life of an older child. 

Second, to adopt Singer's position is to give up the ideas of human equality and human rights (rights that people have in virtue of their humanity). After all, if the thing that gives us moral status comes in degrees - the degree of development of some mental capacity - our moral worth must come in degrees, too. Even among persons, some would have to count for more than others, having more of the trait that confers moral worth. Yet Ruth, I'm sure, wants to hang on to the idea that all humans have equal moral worth and basic human rights (and for that, I salute her). So, to justify abortion she needs to posit a difference in kind, not degree, between unborn human beings and newborns. She needs the unborn to be nonhuman. Professor Singer's advantage is that he doesn't need to resort to science denial. 

To her credit, Ruth does gesture at one argument for the notion that human embryos are nonhuman. She borrows it from another friend of mine, the Harvard political theorist Michael Sandel. lt's superficially plausible but falls apart on inspection. 

To show that embryos differ in kind, not just in degree of development, from human beings at later developmental stages, Professor Sandel offers an analogy:

 Although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees are different kinds of things. 

The fact that we mourn the loss of mature oaks but not acorns does not, however, prove that they differ in kind. After all, we don't mourn the loss of oak saplings, either, yet it's clear that saplings and mature oaks are the same kind of thing. Our reactions only show that we don't value oaks because of the kind of thing they are at all. We value them for their magnificence - a matter of degree. And in the case of oak trees, that is perfectly reasonable. 

But the basis for valuing human beings is profoundly different, which is why the analogy fails. As Sandel acknowledges, human beings count because of the kind of entities they are. That is why all human beings are equal in basic dignity and human rights. Though we value mature oaks more than saplings, we do not value mature humans - adults - more than infants. And while we prize oaks for their magnificence, we do not think that the most developed humans - say, a wonderful athlete like Jim Thorpe or a brilliant physicist like Albert Einstein - are of greater moral worth than, say, the physically frail or mentally impaired. We would not tolerate the harvesting of organs from  an ill or cognitively disabled person to save a Jim Thorpe or Albert Einstein. And we do not tolerate the killing of infants, which on the proposed analogy would be analogous to the oak saplings whose destruction (e.g., in forest management) we don't mourn. 

I began by mentioning a constant in human history. I will conclude by noting a constant in the rhetorical stratagems of abortion advocates: the ubiquitous suggestion that the pro-life view is really just a religious one, and that pro-life advocates would impose their religious ideas on those who don't share their faith. Thus says Ruth, "however much antiabortion advocates insist that their view is rooted in science, they also tend to be guided by a religious philosophy with which other Americans simply disagree." 

Of course, many of the world's religious traditions rightly affirm the inherent dignity of every human person. And many decry the violence of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia - just as they affirm the dignity of young women, and so decry sex trafficking. Some, it is true, do not condemn elective abortion (although the suggestion, occasionally made, that Judaism is one such religion would be fiercely contested by such eminent scholars of Jewish law and ethics as the late Chief Rabbi of Britain lmmanuel Jakobovits, Rabbi David Novak, Rabbi J. David Bleich, and many more). And certainly, there is nothing wrong with people bringing religious arguments to the public square. lt was not wrong when Martn Luther King Jr. unabashedly did it in the struggle to end segregation and Jim Crow. And it is not wrong when faithful Catholics, Protestants, Jews, or Muslims do the same in their fight against the lethal violence of abortion. 

But all this business about "imposing religion" is a sideshow. Whether human embryos are human beings - living members of the species Homo sapiens - is a question resolved by human embryology and developmental biology. lt isn't any more distinctly theological than the age of the earth is. And matters of justice and human rights - what is morally owed to human beings and whether all human beings are bearers of dignity and rights - are not the exclusive province of theology either. Otherwise, we couldn't protect any human beings and their rights without "imposing religion." 

True, the principle that all human beings have moral worth is a contested philosophical claim. But so is the idea that some human beings - those in the embryonic, feta!, and infant stages, and those who are physically severely disabled or cognitively impaired - lack moral worth. There is no morally neutral position. 

The real difference is this. The pro-life view depends on an undisputed scientific fact plus a moral principle that explains and vindicates the worth of infants and the cognitively impaired, and affirms the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family. The defense of elective abortion depends on a moral view that must deny these points, a biological view that contradicts science. or both.

Pax et bonum

Saturday, March 16, 2024

Prayers Every Catholic Should Memorize?


From  

Catholic Vote - 


Shelby Bland on March 15, 2024


Prayers Every Catholic Should Memorize


Almost all of us know some rote prayers. The one we pray before taking a road trip asking our guardian angels to watch over us. Or the one we pray during Mass as we join our voices with the rest of the congregation, asking the Father to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us.

But those prayers only scratch the surface!

How many prayers do we actually know by heart? Likely fewer than we think. CatholicVote has compiled a list of prayers you may be familiar with but not really know. We challenge you to memorize these prayers as we all strive to pray without ceasing.

The ‘Memorare’


Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen.

The Jesus Prayer


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner

Morning Offering


O Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer you my prayers, works, joys, and sufferings of this day, in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass throughout the world. I offer them for all the intentions of your Sacred Heart; the salvation of souls, reparation for sin, the reunion of Christians; and in particular for the intentions of the Holy Father. Amen.

St. Michael Prayer


St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

Eternal Rest


Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon them.
May they rest in peace. Amen.

Hail Holy Queen


Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary. Pray for us, O most holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Anima Christi


Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me.
Within your wounds hide me.
Never permit me to be parted from you.
From the evil Enemy defend me.
At the hour of my death call me
and bid me come to you,
that with your Saints I may praise you
for age upon age.
Amen.

Nicene Creed


I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Apostles’ Creed


I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Pax et bonum

Monday, March 11, 2024

Christian Movie Awards


The Academy Awards were last night. I didn't watch. To be honest, I didn't care as I had seen none of the nominated films. Plus, the program tends to run late, tends to be overly political, and tends to be kind of boring.

When I go to the movies, I prefer ones reflecting Christian values or with uplifting themes, like Sound of Freedom or The Blind.

But I was curious if there were any organizations that give awards for the kinds of movies I actually watch and enjoy.

A quick search online surfaced the Crown Awards of International Christian Visual Media.

Among the 2023 winners were:

Best Picture Sound of Freedom

Best Theatrical Release Gold Crown Award Sound of Freedom

Best Evangelistic Film Gold Crown Award Jesus Revolution

Best Actor Female Gold Crown Winner Anna Grace Barlow as Cathe in Jesus Revolution

Best Actor Male Gold Crown Winner Jonathan Roumie as Lonnie in Jesus Revolution

I actually saw both Sound of Freedom and Jesus Revolution!

The other 2023 winners and nominees can be found here.

Curious, I looked back at some of the earlier best movies.

2022: Sight
2021: Sabina - Tortured for Christ, The Nazi Years
2020: When We Last Spoke
2019: The Least of These: The Graham Staines Story
2018: The Case for Christ
2017  Because of Gracia

Okay, I have to confess I'm not familiar with these previous winners. 

But it is nice to know producers of movies and television with Christian themes can actually get some recognition. 

Pax et bonum