New Years Post for 2010

The New Year of 2010 is almost here. I look eagerly to the new year, wondering what might happen. So much has changed over the last 365 days. I went from a middle school teacher who had not started work on a Masters degree to an unemployed man who has completed three graduate school courses. It has been a stressful year, but one which opened the door to great promises and new hopes. The start of a new year provides me the chance to make myself a better man and a better Catholic.

January 1 is not merely the start of the new year. For Catholics it is the Feast of Mary Mother of God. It is the greatest title given to Our Lady, one which she deeply deserves. In honor of this great Marian feast, i am posting below my paper for my Patristics class. It examines St. Jerome's work defending the perpetual virginity of Mary against a heretic named Helvidius. The work itself is a good read. This precis, however, might not be as well written as Jerome's treatise, but it is shorter, and if you don't get the chance to read the actual document, at least skip my summary.

ST. JEROME AND HIS TREATISE AGAINST HELVIDIUS

Few Church Fathers had the personality and genius that are the trademarks of St. Jerome. Jerome was a man of great learning, educated in the best classical and theological education of the time. He could read and speak several languages, including Hebrew, and was renowned for his faith in Christ and His Church and his cynicism against his fellow man. He was a defender of orthodoxy, and he used all of his intellect against the Church’s enemies. Nowhere is this clearer than in his treatise against Helvidius, where he defends not only Mary’s perpetual virginity and the merit of virginity as a state in life.

Jerome wrote Against Helvidius on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary around the year 383, while Jerome was the secretary of Pope Damasus. It was written against a certain layman named Helvidius, who had written a tract in response to a monk named Carterius. Carterius had tried to defend monastic virginity, holding the Virgin Mary as the supreme example of holy virginity. Helvidius attacked Carterius’ work, insisting that not only did Mary loose her virginity to Joseph after the birth of Christ, but also that all the praise given to virginity as a higher calling in life compared to marriage was false. Both vocations, Helvidius held, were equal. Helvidius cited Scripture in defense of both points, and caused a spiritual scandal among the Christians. Jerome initially ignored Helvidius’ work, but the cry for help from his friends in Rome inspired him to draw is pen against Helvidius.[1] The result is Against Helvidius, which captures the style and themes of the rest of Jerome’s writings, and truly demonstrates the genius of Jerome.

Jerome divides his work into four main parts. The first two parts examine passages from the Gospels that discuss Mary and Joseph’s married life. First, Jerome attacks the argument of Helvidius that the phrase “before they came together” in the gospels means Mary conceived before they had sexual relations, although they did have relations later. The second part discusses the phrase “he knew her not till she had brought forth a son,” which Helvidius held meant Mary had sexual relations with Joseph immediately after the birth of Jesus. The third part deals with a related issue, that of the “brethren” of Jesus mentioned throughout the Gospels, which Helvidius claimed was again evidence that Mary did not remain a virgin after Christ’s birth. The last section defends the theological superiority of holy virginity as a way of life over that of marriage. Jerome uses wit and wisdom throughout the work. He begins his argument with the Gospel passages cited by Helvidius, but then proceeds to argue his points from both the Old and New Testaments, as well as earlier Christian theologians.

Jerome begins by explaining why he is writing, offering to some extent a thesis statement for the work as a whole. He hardly writes two sentences before he notes that the reason he has delayed writing a document against Helvidius is “not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating.”[2] He attacks the intellect of Helvidius, and then invokes the Trinity to aid him in his defense. It reminds one of a classical Greek or Roman poet invoking the muses for support. For Jerome, though, the prayer is more than a matter of style. It is a prayer that God might defend His mother’s dignity through Jerome’s words.

The first statement Jerome cites from Helvidius looks at the Gospel According to Matthew. Helvidius notes that Matthew says Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph, not “entrusted,” as if Mary was to become Joseph’s wife later. He references the phrase “before they came together” to show that Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit before she and Joseph “came together” in sexual intercourse, but they did “come together” afterwards (3). Jerome attacks this philological claim by showing other instances where similar words do not imply immediate action. He gives the example of a man who says “Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa” (4). “His words could not hold good,” Jerome explains, “unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour” (Ibid.). Jerome also uses the example of St. Paul, who “before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome” (Ibid.). Paul, Jerome rightfully says, is not forced to travel to Spain upon release. Jerome summarizes the thought by saying “Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought?” (Ibid.). Jerome also notes that it is common to call a betrothed woman a “wife”, and he cites several examples from Deuteronomy as proof. He also explains why Mary conceived after she was betrothed, not before. Three reasons are given:

First, that by the genealogy of Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary's origin might also be shown. Secondly, that she might not in accordance with the law of Moses be stoned as an adulteress. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt she might have some solace, though it was that of a guardian rather than a husband. For who at that time would have believed the Virgin's word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? (Ibid.)

These same reasons, Jerome explains, are why Joseph is called Jesus’ father, even though Christ’s patrimony is from the Father. It was to protect Mary and Jesus, which Joseph rightfully saw as his sacred duty.

Jerome next attacks Helvidius’ argument that Joseph did not know Mary “till she had brought forth a son” (Mt. 1:25), meaning that Joseph had intercourse with Mary after Jesus was born. “Till” for Helvidius implied a “fixed and definite time, and when that is fulfilled, he says the event takes place which previously did not take place” (5). Jerome counters by stating that “till” and “knew” often have multiple meanings in Scripture, and “till” in particular often means “time without limitation” (6). Jerome cites seven different occurrences from both the Old and New Testaments where the word “till” could not mean a “fixed and definite time.” Each one seems laughably obvious, but they hit the heart of Helvidius’ argument. For example, Jerome cites Isaiah 46:4 where God says “Even to [till] old age I am he.” Jerome, following Helvidius’ logic, asks “Will He cease to be God when they have grown old?” (Ibid.). The answer is obviously no, and this reductio ad absurdum, along with Jerome’s other Scriptural proofs, show the major flaws in Helvidius’ arguments.

Jerome takes Helvidius’ argument a step further, asking, if he wanted to have intercourse with Mary “why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery” before knowing her. Jerome answers by referring to the holiness of Joseph, who would not dare defile Mary, nor even touch her out of sexual desire, since she was the God-bearer. If Helvidius is true to his arguments, Jerome continues, Joseph would have had intercourse with Mary immediately after she delivered Christ, since his lust could not wait the forty day purification period required by the Mosaic Law. Jerome cites the law in full, and maintains that the Joseph Helvidius depicts is a man who would leave the newborn child with midwives to “clasp his exhausted wife,” (10), not the just man depicted in the gospels. It could not happen that way, Jerome maintains, even if Joseph wanted it, since a midwife was not there at Christ’s birth. It was only Mary and Joseph at the manger.

Satisfied with his attack on Helvidius’ first two arguments, Jerome turns to his third point, that Christ had brothers, which are referenced in the gospels as Christ’s “brethren.” Jerome first examines the claim that Christ had younger siblings because he is called the “first born” of his parents, not the “only begotten,” the latter phrase more commonly used to denote an only son. Jerome points out, however, that a son does not need to have siblings to be the first son born. If one follows the logic of Helvidius, Jerome argues, a child could not be declared the “first born” until his mother births another child. A child is declared a first born not by his birth but by that of his siblings. It is illogical, and Jerome points it out as such. If the “only begotten” and the “first born” could not overlap, Jerome continues, then God was wrong when he killed “only begotten” children as well as “first born” in Egypt. Again, Jerome cites examples from the Old Testament to explain the New, and again Helvidius’ points fall before Jerome’s logic.

Jerome next deals with the problem of Jesus’ “brethren,” evidence, Helvidius says, that Mary and Joseph had later progeny. Again, Jerome examines the exact words used in the Scripture, in this case the word “brethren” and “sisters.” Jerome does concede that there are many apparent references to “brethren” of Jesus throughout the New Testament, but at the same time he states they are not really blood relations of Jesus. Otherwise, why would Christ entrust Mary to John the Beloved if he had several brothers and sisters? Could they not take care of their mother? Also, it seems that the mother of one of the “brethren” of Jesus was at the Cross, another Mary, but not Mary the mother of Jesus. Jerome also points out that there were four types of brethren in Scripture: by nature, race, kindred, and love (16). Brethren by nature are blood brothers, like Jacob and Esau. Brethren by race are the Israelites, and Jerome quotes Deuteronomy and St. Paul in reference to their mention of fellow Israelites as “brethren.” Brethren by kindred are not necessarily blood brothers like Jacob and Esau, but they are from the same family. Abram and his nephew Lot are given as examples for these brethren. Finally, brethren by love are divided into two groups, one spiritual (in that all Christians are brethren of each other) and one of “the general relationship,” as Jerome says, which refers to the general patrimony of God as mankind’s Father (17).

Which of these four, Jerome asks, applies to the “brethren” of Jesus? It is not by nature, since the Scriptures disagree with that belief, as discussed above. It is not by race, because any and all of the Jews would be called brethren, but that is not the case. It is not by spiritual or general relationship, because if that were the case there would not be the special reference to the brethren, since all of Christ’s followers are brethren by spirit and all men are brethren as children of God. Jerome determines they are brethren by kindred, brothers of Jesus in the same way that Joseph is Jesus’ father. The same idea is captured by the word “cousin.” They are “brethren in point of kinship not by nature” (19). As a final point in his argument, Jerome cites earlier Church Fathers from the Eastern and Western parts of the Church in support of his exegesis.

In the final section of the document, Jerome attacks with particular ferocity Helvidius’ claim that consecrated virginity and marriage are theologically equal. He takes particular care in this section, for as he says, “when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly” (21). Sacred virginity, Jerome argues, is a sacrifice to God. It is a way that Christians can separate themselves from the distractions of the world and give themselves fully to God. Jerome points out the problems with marriages and how a married person runs the risk of putting his or her spouse and what the spouse wants before God. Those married people who live exemplary lives are those whose married state closest resembles the life of a virgin. Jerome turns back to the example of Joseph and Mary, presenting the theory that Joseph remained a virgin during his life with Mary, since he was the husband of a virgin and the foster father of one too. If a couple does not remember God and imitate the holy virgins, their marriage will be a disaster. Likewise, if a virgin does not follow her vow, it is not holy virginity’s fault. The woman at that point cannot call herself a virgin. Jerome summarizes this by saying, “I maintain that she who is engaged in huckstering, though for anything I know she may be a virgin in body, is no longer one in spirit” (23). Consecrating oneself to God is crucial for Jerome, and none of those who downplay such a gift, be it Helvidius or the woman who rejects her vowed virginity, can escape Jerome’s wrath. With that, he ends the treatise.

Against Helvidius is an important work for several reasons. It gives the reader a glimpse into Jerome’s ascetical beliefs. The discussion of the importance of virginity is a reflection of Jerome’s own spiritual experience and his journey away from the sins typically found in a city like Rome. The work also references other Fathers of the Church, showing that even in the fourth century respect for Tradition flourished. As far as Jerome’s exegetical skills are concerned, the treatise shows that Jerome “is equally at home in the Old and the New Testament.”[3] It also provides a glimpse into the philological exactitude Jerome possessed, even with his non-native languages.

Against Helvidius is the quintessential work of St. Jerome. It demonstrates most of the qualities found in his other works, and it incorporates important aspects from his own life. It shows his knack for witty insults, which have become synonymous with Jerome’s name. More importantly, however, it shows that Jerome was a man of deep faith and stirring genius, a combination which is unparalleled in today’s world, and might never be matched again. He truly was a great defender of the Church he loved so much.

---

[1]Jean Steinmann, Saint Jerome and His Times, trans. Ronald Matthews (Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers, 1959), 118.

[2]Jerome, Against Helvidius on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (handout). All further citations of Against Helvidius are from this copy and are henceforth be cited parenthetically by paragraph number.

[3]Steinmann, 119.

The Historical Milieu of Christ's Birth (part 2)

Part 2 - Other Pagan Preparations for Christ

It is a central tenant of the Christian Faith that Christ came to redeem the entire world. It is essential to 2000 years of Christology, from the earliest Christian writings to today’s parish homilies. The universality of the Redemption was apparent, as mentioned in the first part of this series, in the preparations for Christ found in the great civilization of Rome. The Romans were pagan, and were therefore separate from the Hebrews in Palestine. The Romans worshiped a pantheon of gods, ranging from the personal household gods to the great master gods of Jupiter and Apollo. The Hebrews on the other hand worshiped the one true God, seemingly unique in their monotheism.

Fortunately, this was not the case. There were several instances throughout the ancient world of monotheism, although these occasions more often than not were sparse and sporadic, not systematic and continuous, as found in Israel. In Ancient Egypt, for example, a pharaoh named Akenaten attempted a theological revolution by forcing the belief in one god, Aten, over other Egyptian gods. This occurred between 1375 – 1350 BC. Akenaten wrote a beautiful song to Aten, which bears a striking resemblance to Psalm 104. The monotheism of Pharaoh Akenaten, unfortunately, died out with the king.

Farther to the east of Palestine, though, there was another group of monotheists whose beliefs developed into a national religion. The land was Persia, now modern-day Iran. The religious leader was a man named Zarathustra (more commonly called Zoroaster), and his religion was named Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism, like Judaism, held to the belief in one true God. The God of Zoroaster was a personal one, who would redeem his people. The historical connection between Zoroastrianism and the Hebrew people is fascinating, though sometimes tenuous. It is believed by some historians (including Catholic historian Warren H. Carroll) that exiled Israelites, particularly those mentioned in the Book of Tobit, inspired Zoroaster to follow the one true God. Whether or not Zoroaster actually met the biblical Tobit is not important. What is important is that Zoroaster must have met and discussed with exiled Jews, for his spiritual descendents would travel very far to see the fulfillment of God’s promise of redemption.

After Zoroaster managed to convert the king of Bactria around 588 BC, his form of Eastern monotheism spread throughout the eastern half of the Middle East. Cyrus of Persia may have followed Zoroastrianism, and he did have in Persia magi, who were priests of Zoroastrianism. These magi are the same “wise men from the East” (Matt. 2:1) that came to give Christ gifts by following a “star” (we’ll discuss the Star of Bethlehem in a later post). Cyrus of Persia is the same Cyrus mentioned in the books of Daniel and Ezra in the Old Testament, the king of Persia that allowed the Israelites to return home and worship the Lord. A later king, Darius, would also deal with the Jews, as recounted in the book of Daniel, before spreading out the arm of the Persian Empire throughout the world. Darius was the Persian king that attacked Greece and fought the famous 300 Spartans. Likewise he reached out to the East and made contact with the strange civilization of India.

In India, an odd religion existed. The adherents to the religion followed a charismatic man named Siddhartha, who is known today as Buddha. This religion held that the soul is in a cycle of rebirth, which upon completion led the soul to a sort of enlightenment. It was a near impossible task, which led to debates and doubt over the existence of the final stage of enlightenment, and even over the existence of the world itself. Another teacher in India, Mahavira, taught that the soul eventually reached a state of “self-subsistence,” literally becoming God; not like God, in that the soul reaches a higher existence, but somehow becomes the cause of its own existence.

Despite all these metaphysical impossibilities, these strange theological philosophers still stressed the goodness of the human person. All should be treated with respect, a morality closely resembling the teachings of Israel more than some other pagan nations. Could it have been a glimmer of Heaven shining through the darkness of Hell?

In China, even farther east, there was a sort of agnostic society, which held there was a deity of some sort somewhere, but the more important matters of life concerned interaction between people. This was found in the great Chinese philosophers, such as Lao Tzu (founder of Taoism) and Confucius, who urged morality and ethics. This ethical teaching had a rebirth almost 300 years before Christ’s birth in the teaching of Mo Ti.

Around the time of King Cyrus, Buddha, and Confucius, Greece saw the rise of her earliest philosophers. These early philosophers tried to make sense of the material world, eventually tackling the problem of matter and essence. Thales, for example, held that matter was entirely made up of water. Others followed suit, but it wasn’t until Parmenides, who lived during the same generation as Cyrus, Buddha, and Confucius, that Greek philosophy examined the question of existence. Parmenides actual realized there must be being, that there must be something that is pure existence. It was this early realization of metaphysics that allowed the later great Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, to develop their own understanding of existence. This thought they taught to their disciples.

One of Aristotle’s disciples in particular, Alexander the Great, would conquer the world, paving the way for the Roman Empire, which had its own secretive preparation for the birth of Christ (mentioned in part 1). Alexander spread Greek culture and the Greek language throughout the world. It was in the Greek of Alexander that the Gospel was written, and it was the Greek rhetorical and philosophic tradition that the Apostles used to spread Christ’s teachings.

To a secular historian, the above mentioned spiritual and philosophical developments of the pagan world might seem distant and unconnected. To the Catholic historian, however, it becomes clear that God was preparing the way for his Incarnation, even through those who were not his Chose People. In our next segment, we will discuss how he prepared the way for his coming in the Scriptures and history of those chosen people.

In defense of 20th Century Popes

I was recently involved in a debate with one of my friends. There wasn't really a conclusion to the debate (I was called an ecclesiastical liberal by the end, and told not to talk to the person anymore), but I spent so much time preparing my response that I felt I should share it with you.

The recent declarations concerning Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II prompted the discussion. For those who have not heard, Benedict XVI recently declared the heroic virtues of the two pontiffs. The person had stated that it was a bad thing that John Paul II had received this distinction, as it puts him a step closer to sainthood. The person stated that it would be a terrible thing if John Paul II became a saint, and that the two (he meant three) popes the person did not like were John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. In response to this comment, I wrote what follows. Hopefully this will inform those who are interested, and perhaps change the minds of those who agree with this person. I have adjusted the tone of the response to make it more universal, less personal, if that's alright with everyone.


First, I assume you meant three popes instead of two, because you listed Blessed John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II (I assume you skipped John Paul I because he did not reign long enough to do anything offensive). I am saddened that you feel that the day JPII becomes a saint (which may or may not ever happen) will be a bad one. The idea that any day a saint is made is a bad one worries me, since a canonization is an infallible declaration that someone is in heaven, and that we can pray through them so that they can intercede for us. It is one of the most beautiful aspects of our Catholic Faith.

But lets look at these popes which you despise.


John XXIII - became pope in 1958, following the death of Pius XII. He had not expected to become pope, and had actually purchased a return ticked for the train back to Venice, where he was a patriarch of that city. He was supposed to be a filler pope, a little bit older and more likely not to do anything with his pontificate. The hope was that a younger cardinal would be elected after his death. No one expected everything this filler pope brought about.

John was loved by all, famous for his infections personality. He visited prisons, declaring to the inmates, "You could not come to me, so I came to you." He opened Vatican II in October of 1962, after he had made some additions to the Roman Missal (like adding a invocation of St. Joseph in the Canon), what we know of as the 1962 Missal, used in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

The Second Vatican Council, whether you like it or not, is one of the most important events in the history of the Catholic Church in the 20th Century. The primary goal was to pick up where Vatican I had left off (it had been canceled prematurely due to Rome being annexed by Italy, towards the end of the Franco-Prussian War). The hope of this council, John stated, was to open the windows of the Church and let in some fresh air, so to speak. The problems of the council, some more innocent than others, were less the fault of Pope John, who had honorable and holy intentions for the council. His main fault was his faith in humanity. He loved people, and refused to see evil around him. This is clearly seen in his first encyclical, Ad Petri Cathedram. He died early on in the council, and apparently his last words were "stop the council." Only on his deathbed had the holy pope realized how he had been used.

He was beatified by John Paul II in 2000.



Paul VI - Pope Paul VI was the logical successor to John XXIII. He had been close to both Pope John and his predecessor Pius XII. He had worked with Pope Pius during World War II, and was made cardinal under Pope John. Paul would make his own mark on the Church. He reopened Vatican II (the council had been suspended with the death of John XXIII) and worked with the cardinals to write the documents, sometimes directly intervening (in Lumen Gentium, for example, Pope Paul had the cardinals attach a chapter about Mary under her new title as Mother of the Church). He wrote commentaries about the documents, and closed the council in 1965.

In addition to writing these commentaries, Pope Paul VI wrote several encyclicals, including Mysterium Fidei (which defended several Catholic traditions and doctrines concerning the Eucharist), Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (which defended priestly celibacy), Populorum Progressio (a social encyclical, which Pope Benedict XVI cites mostly in his recent social encyclical Caritas in Veritate), and Humanae Vitae (his most famous encyclical, where he defended the Church's position on marriage, abortion, and contraceptives, even against his "advisors"). He also worked on ecumenical relations with non-Catholic Christians, and indeed paved the way for the recent group Anglican conversions (but that's a topic for another day). In 1978, he became very sick while staying at Castle Gandolfo, the summer residence for popes. He died there, and was buried under St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

The controversies surrounding Paul VI are surprising. During Vatican II, he ensured the Council remained not too liberal or conservative. His might be criticized for not coming down as hard as he could on those who dissented from his teachings, particularly that found in Humanae Vitae, although he was not afraid publicly reprimanding, or at least supporting correction of, dissenters. He suffered throughout his pontificate from people on both sides of the liberal/conservative coin pulling and ripping at him. He wanted so much to see the Church become a universal Church, not just one of Europe. In that it is clear he succeeded, because otherwise we would not be having this conversation.



John Paul II - Undeniably the most recognizable pontiff of the last 100 years, John Paul II was elected after the sudden death of Pope John Paul I, who reigned for a mere 33 days. John Paul II was a surprise choice, the first non-Italian pope since Pope Adrian VI. He had been at Vatican II and had worked with Paul VI on several matters. He reigned for almost 27 years, one of the longest pontificates in history. He delt with all sorts of issues, be it moral, dogmatic, liturgical, diplomatic, etc. He was the victim of an assassination attempt at the hands of communist agents in 1981 at an audience in St. Peter's square. He played a great role in the fall of communism, talking with world leaders and inspiring uprisings throughout the world, most notably the Solidarity movement in Poland. He traveled throughout the world, and worked with reuniting other Christian communities with the Catholic Church. He had promulgated under his pontificate a reissue of the Code of Canon Law and a universal Catechism of the Catholic Church. He defended the Church's teachings on moral issues, issuing the first officially moral theology encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, and one that dealt with life issues, Evangelicum Vitae.

His life and work is well known, and yet rarely fully examined. Few people, especially his critics, have read all of his work (there are so many, and they are so long!). He canonized 483 saints and beatified 1340 people (which has also been cited as a slight against him, as if many saints is a bad thing). As with Paul VI, he was criticized by liberals for his conservative views (particularly his firm stance on moral issues and Church doctrine) and ultra-conservatives for his apologies for past Church actions/inactions, his interaction with other religions, and his unwillingness to abandon Vatican II.

He was a very spiritual person, holding a special devotion to Mary and the Passion.


That sums up my summary of the popes you don't like. Do you see my point?

The Historical Milieu of Christ's Birth (part 1)

The Historical Milieu of Christ's Birth

Part 1 - Rome

On December 25, Christians around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth (the exception being the Russian Orthodox Christians, who celebrate Christmas on January 7). It is a feast that has become riddled with controversy, as men for the last few hundred years have sought to minimize its significance. For the Christian, the birth of the World’s Savior is obviously an event of great significance; for the historian, likewise, the birth of arguably the most important man in history bears more than a little importance. As a Christian historian, therefore, it is almost a requirement that I should examine the history surrounding the birth of Jesus, and see how exactly God prepared the world for his coming.

We begin in Rome. Although Christ’s life took place in Palestine, formally small Italian city of Rome controlled Palestine and the rest of the known world at the time of the Incarnation. In the twilight of the era before Christ, Rome was celebrating her second emperor, Caesar Augustus. Augustus had brought Rome out of the civil war that followed the assassination of his uncle, Julius Caesar. For the first time in centuries, Rome was at peace, no longer involved wars of conquest or internal disputation. It was a time known as the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. Augustus made sure the city of Rome, and thereby the entire empire, remembered this period of peace. In particular, he closed the temple of Janus, a Roman god (where we get the name for the month January). This temple was used primarily in praying for peace. Sacrifices were offered in the hope that something like the Pax Romana would occur. When it did happen, as hoped, there was no need for the temple to stay open. Augustus, in a lavish ceremony, placed a Roman military spear across the doors of the temple, officially declaring the Empire in a state of peace. This lasted until after his death. Christ was born before Augustus’s death, and thus the Prince fo Peace was born in a time of universal peace.

This peaceful precedent was not the only preparation for Christ’s coming that involved Caesar Augustus. Augustus became emperor of Rome in 29 BC around the age of 34. As he got older, he became more beloved, and some senators sought to erect a temple to Augustus. Augustus was unsure if he should allow it, so he sought the advice of an oracle. The sibyl there told Augustus that a greater king would come and rule Rome. Augustus went out, and then he saw a vision. The sky opened and a woman holding an infant appeared. The sibyl told Augustus that the infant was to be the divine ruler of the world. Augustus told the senators, who agreed to build a temple at the spot to a virgin goddess. The historical details of the vision are sketchy, and the above story comes more from a medieval manuscript than a life of Augustus. However, there is some archaeological evidence that the story predates the medieval legend (See Paul F. Burke, “Augustus and Christianity in Myth and Legend,” New England Classical Journal 32, No. 3 (2005) 213-220.).

Related to Augustus’s vision is the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil. Virgil, a Latin poet more famous for his epic poem The Aenead, wrote some smaller poems called eclogues. The fourth of these, written around 40 BC, refers to a young boy who will rule Heaven and Earth. The initial prompt for such a poem was probably Augustus’s expected victory (since he had not yet completely squashed his enemies); however, the poem so closely resembles a passage from Isaiah that some scholars believe Virgil was inspired by the prophecies of the prophet concerning the coming Messiah as recorded in the Septuagint, which was popular reading for some Romans. The boy in the poem is linked with Lucina, the goddess “who brings children into light,” a proper association for the Hebraic Messiah. Concerning the boy, Virgil also says,

He shall receive the life of gods, and see
Heroes with gods commingling, and himself
Be seen of them, and with his father's worth
Reign o'er a world at peace.

As mentioned above, Augustus was responsible for the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace, and could very well be the boy destined to rule the world in peace mentioned in the poem. The similarity to Isaiah, though, is too close to ignore, particularly because Isaiah refers to the Messiah as the “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). Virgil also notes, interestingly enough, that “The serpent too shall die,” as one of the results of his Messiah’s coming. Did he make the connection between Genesis 3:15 and the coming Jewish Messiah? Virgil was a smart man, and if he had read much of the Septuagint, he might have followed the systematic thought behind the Jewish writers, and he very well might have connected the prophecies from Genesis to those found in Isaiah. The prophetic poem that makes up the Fourth Eclogue is too similar to Hebraic prophecies of Christ to be a coincidence.

One last event in Rome closes this first part of examining the milieu surrounding Christ’s birth. Virgil noted in his above mentioned eclogue that the Earth will erupt with joy for the arrival of the Messiah:

For thee, O boy,
First shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth
Her childish gifts, the gadding ivy-spray.

This sounds simply like an artistic description of the Earth’s joy in the Messiah. It would indeed be merely a literary device, if something similar had not happened historically. Sometime between 38 and 30 BC, between two and ten years after Virgil composed this poem, an incredible amount of oil flowed up from the ground and spilled into the Tiber River. The oil came from the small suburb of Rome called Trestevere, though the area was at that time called Taberna Meritoria. The story is recounted not only in Christian literature (St. Jerome mentions it in his additions to Eusebius Chronicle of the Church, and another Christian writer named Paulus Orosius draws the connection between the Pax Romana, the oil, and the coming of Christ) but also in a pagan Roman history by Dio Cassius, who wrote in his Roman History (XLVIII, 43), “Now many events of a portentous nature had occurred even before this, such as the spouting of olive oil on the bank of the Tiber, and many also at this time” (The translator makes a note that the word translated as “olive oil” can also mean regular oil). The story is one of history, not merely of Christian legend. Whether it directly predicts the birth of Christ is another matter, but the fact that it is so close chronologically to Virgil’s seemingly prophetic poem makes the connection between the birth of Christ and the bubbling oil seem reasonable. This is not the only instance of physical phenomenon happening in concurrence with Christ’s birth (the more famous example, the Star of Bethlehem, is examined later in this series). It seems all of creation awaited the blessed event of the Incarnation.

We have examined preparations for the Messiah in the capital imperial city of Rome. Next time, we will examine how other parts of the world, particularly to the east of Palestine, prepared for the coming of Christ.

God, Prayer, Children. . . and Food

We are often frustrated with our prayers. How often do we pray for something, but do not receive what we ask? How many times does that unsatisfying feeling of abandonment and frustration tingle in our minds. We might think God is ignoring us, or at least does not hear our plea.

The problem is that we are seeing matters in our point of view, not God's. The reality is much deeper than what we sense, and is equally much more beautiful. We can not fully comprehend the mind of God. We turn to metaphors to even scratch the surface of God's greatness.

Imagine a mother and her child. The child must eat, obviously, and oftentimes the child wants something it should not eat. For example, a child might want ice cream and cookies for dinner. We have all felt this way at one time or another. Even those whose deserts were more nutritious fare (fruit or what not) have desired tasty treats over the comparatively dull dinner. The mother, on the other hand, knows what is good for the child. Even a bowl of fruit should be supplemented by other, more well-rounded meals. Rather than offering the child cookies and ice cream, the mother gives the child vegetables.

This is not what the child wanted.

The child protests, complains, and if it is old enough, says the mother doesn't love him/her. It is a battle to rival that of Lepanto or Gettysburg. But the mother does not give in to the whines of the child.

Is the child right? Does the mother not love the child? Of course she does. She is showing her love through the healthy dinner. She has provided what the child needs at that time, in order to help the child grow. The child does not see why the mother is serving such a disgusting meal. It is beyond his or her understanding.

But there is a greater reason.

That's how it is with God and us. We are the children of God, and he is the provider. We turn to him for nourishment, both bodily and spiritually. We more often than not ask for desert, when the Lord offers us dinner. We do not see how the bitter taste will help us in the long run, but God knows. All that we are, and all that we can be He knows, and He, like the mother, knows what's best.

That being said, one must remember that this is a metaphor. It is not exact. Don't call God "Mother," just as you wouldn't call your own mother "God." Perhaps "Father" might be replaced for "Mother" in the metaphor, but a "Mother" should never replace the "Father."

Cryptozological claim proven?

Welcome to another Cryptozoology post. This time it has nothing to do with Montauk Monsters or some other thing washed up on a beach. It has to do with giant birds. Freaking huge birds, to be more accurate.

I heard about this in this article. How could you possibly resist reading an article like that? Anyway, the article is a scientific one, not a "what if" one, which gives it an air of credibility. However, the story made me think of one thing: Thunderbirds.

Not Thunder Cats. Thunderbirds. And I'm not talking about cars either.

Thunderbirds are, according to the legends, large flying birds that fly before thunderstorms. Native American legends have them as the explanation for thunder and lightning. For those of you into Pokemon, Zapdos (from the original 151 set) is based on this legend of a Thunderbird.

Another part of the legend is that these giant birds would swoop down and eat people, specifically small children. This appears in the Native American accounts, as well as the accounts from the Maori legends. On July 25, 1977, two thunderbirds reportedly swooped down and tried to carry of a ten-year old boy who was playing in the yard with his friends. Between his struggling and his mother's yelling, the bird dropped the boy and flew away. Similarly large birds have been sighted in different parts of the world for centuries.

There may be a link between the legends of the Native Americans and the legends of the Maori. More investigation is needed into the thunderbird legends and similar legends throughout the world, but this recent is more evidence that dismissing claims of "primitive" groups of people is not only mean, it is also bad science.

Lost in High School

The Historical Milieu of Christ's birth

Part 1 - Rome

On December 25, Christians around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth (the exception being the Russian Orthodox Christians, who celebrate Christmas on January 7). It is a feast that has become riddled with controversy, as men for the last few hundred years have sought to minimize its significance. For the Christian, the birth of the World’s Savior is obviously an event of great significance; for the historian, likewise, the birth of arguably the most important man in history bears more than a little importance. As a Christian historian, therefore, it is almost a requirement that I should examine the history surrounding the birth of Jesus, and see how exactly God prepared the world for his coming.

We begin in Rome. Although Christ’s life took place in Palestine, formally small Italian city of Rome controlled Palestine and the rest of the known world at the time of the Incarnation. In the twilight of the era before Christ, Rome was celebrating her second emperor, Caesar Augustus. Augustus had brought Rome out of the civil war that followed the assassination of his uncle, Julius Caesar. For the first time in centuries, Rome was at peace, no longer involved wars of conquest or internal disputation. It was a time known as the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. Augustus made sure the city of Rome, and thereby the entire empire, remembered this period of peace. In particular, he closed the temple of Janus, a Roman god (where we get the name for the month January). This temple was used primarily in praying for peace. Sacrifices were offered in the hope that something like the Pax Romana would occur. When it did happen, as hoped, there was no need for the temple to stay open. Augustus, in a lavish ceremony, placed a Roman military spear across the doors of the temple, officially declaring the Empire in a state of peace. This lasted until after his death. Christ was born before Augustus’s death, and thus the Prince fo Peace was born in a time of universal peace.

This peaceful precedent was not the only preparation for Christ’s coming that involved Caesar Augustus. Augustus became emperor of Rome in 29 BC around the age of 34. As he got older, he became more beloved, and some senators sought to erect a temple to Augustus. Augustus was unsure if he should allow it, so he sought the advice of an oracle. The sibyl there told Augustus that a greater king would come and rule Rome. Augustus went out, and then he saw a vision. The sky opened and a woman holding an infant appeared. The sibyl told Augustus that the infant was to be the divine ruler of the world. Augustus told the senators, who agreed to build a temple at the spot to a virgin goddess. The historical details of the vision are sketchy, and the above story comes more from a medieval manuscript than a life of Augustus. However, there is some archaeological evidence that the story predates the medieval legend (See Paul F. Burke, “Augustus and Christianity in Myth and Legend,” New England Classical Journal 32, No. 3 (2005) 213-220).

Related to Augustus’s vision is the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil. Virgil, a Latin poet more famous for his epic poem The Aenead, wrote some smaller poems called eclogues. The fourth of these, written around 40 BC, refers to a young boy who will rule Heaven and Earth. The initial prompt for such a poem was probably Augustus’s expected victory (since he had not yet completely squashed his enemies); however, the poem so closely resembles a passage from Isaiah that some scholars believe Virgil was inspired by the prophecies of the prophet concerning the coming Messiah as recorded in the Septuagint, which was popular reading for some Romans. The boy in the poem is linked with Lucina, the goddess “who brings children into light,” a proper association for the Hebraic Messiah. Concerning the boy, Virgil also says,

He shall receive the life of gods, and see
Heroes with gods commingling, and himself
Be seen of them, and with his father's worth
Reign o'er a world at peace.

As mentioned above, Augustus was responsible for the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace, and could very well be the boy destined to rule the world in peace mentioned in the poem. The similarity to Isaiah, though, is too close to ignore, particularly because Isaiah refers to the Messiah as the “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). Virgil also notes, interestingly enough, that “The serpent too shall die,” as one of the results of his Messiah’s coming. Did he make the connection between Genesis 3:15 and the coming Jewish Messiah? Virgil was a smart man, and if he had read much of the Septuagint, he might have followed the systematic thought behind the Jewish writers, and he very well might have connected the prophecies from Genesis to those found in Isaiah. The prophetic poem that makes up the Fourth Eclogue is too similar to Hebraic prophecies of Christ to be a coincidence.

One last event in Rome closes this first part of examining the milieu surrounding Christ’s birth. Virgil noted in his above mentioned eclogue that the Earth will erupt with joy for the arrival of the Messiah:

For thee, O boy,
First shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth
Her childish gifts, the gadding ivy-spray.

This sounds simply like an artistic description of the Earth’s joy in the Messiah. It would indeed be merely a literary device, if something similar had not happened historically. Sometime between 38 and 30 BC, between two and ten years after Virgil composed this poem, an incredible amount of oil flowed up from the ground and spilled into the Tiber River. The oil came from the small suburb of Rome called Trestevere, though the area was at that time called Taberna Meritoria. The story is recounted not only in Christian literature (St. Jerome mentions it in his additions to Eusebius Chronicle of the Church, and another Christian writer named Paulus Orosius draws the connection between the Pax Romana, the oil, and the coming of Christ) but also in a pagan Roman history by Dio Cassius, who wrote in his Roman History (XLVIII, 43), “Now many events of a portentous nature had occurred even before this, such as the spouting of olive oil on the bank of the Tiber, and many also at this time.” (The translator makes a note that the word translated as “olive oil” can also mean regular oil). The story is one of history, not merely of Christian legend. Whether it directly predicts the birth of Christ is another matter, but the fact that it is so close chronologically to Virgil’s seemingly prophetic poem makes the connection between the birth of Christ and the bubbling oil seem reasonable. This is not the only instance of physical phenomenon happening in concurrence with Christ’s birth (the more famous example, the Star of Bethlehem, is examined later in this series). It seems all of creation awaited the blessed event of the Incarnation.

We have examined preparations for the Messiah in the capital imperial city of Rome. Next time, we will examine how other parts of the world, particularly to the east of Palestine, prepared for the coming of Christ.

and now for something completely different.

We need an uplifting post. Here's one of those emails that everyone gets and forwards to everyone who already got it. Well, who would do that when I've got a BLOG!

This reminds me of the book 1066 and All That, which I highly recommend.



ABRIDGED OUTLINE OF HISTORY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3050 B.C.- A Sumerian invents the wheel. Within the week, the idea is stolen
and duplicated by other Sumerians, there-by establishing the business ethic
for all times.

2900 B.C.- Wondering why the Egyptians call that new thing a Sphinx becomes
the first of the world's Seven Great Wonders.

1850 B.C.- Britons proclaim Operation Stonehenge a success. They've finally
gotten those boulders arranged in a sufficiently meaningless pattern to
confuse scientists for centuries.

1785 B.C.- The first calendar, composed of a year with 354 days, is
introduced by Babylonian scientists.

1768 B.C.- Babylonians realize something is wrong when winter begins in
June.

776 B.C.- The world's first known money appears in Persia, immediately
causing the world's first known counterfeiter to appear in Persia the next
day.

525 B.C.- The first Olympics are held, and prove similar to the modern
games, except that the Russians don't try to enter a six-footer with a
mustache in the women's shot put. However, the Egyptians do!

410 B.C.- Rome ends the practice of throwing debtors into slavery, thus
removing the biggest single obstacle to the development of the credit card.

404 B.C.- The Peloponnesian war has been going on for 27 years now because
neither side can find a treaty writer who knows how to spell Peloponnesian.

214 B.C.- Tens of thousands of Chinese labor for a gener-ation to build the
1,500 mile long Great Wall of China. And after all that, it still doesn't
keep the neighbor's dog out.

1 B.C.- Calendar manufacturers find themselves in total dis-agreement over
what to call next year.

79 A.D.- Buying property in Pompeii turns out to have been a lousy real
estate investment.

432- St. Patrick introduces Christianity to Ireland, thereby giving the
natives something interesting to fight about for the rest of their recorded
history.

1000- Leif Ericsson discovers America, but decides it's not worth
mentioning.

1043- Lady Godiva finds a means of demonstrating against high taxes that
immediately makes everyone forget what she is demonstrating against.

1125- Arabic numerals are introduced to Europe, enabling peasants to solve
the most baffling problem that confronts them: How much tax do you owe on
MMMDCCCLX Lira when you're in the XXXVI percent bracket?

1233- The Inquisition is set up to torture and kill anyone who disagrees
with the Law of the Church. However, the practice is so un-Christian that it
is permitted to continue for only 600 years.

1297- The world's first stock exchange opens, but no one has the foresight
to buy IBM or Xerox.

1433- Portugal launches the African slave trade, which just proves what a
small, ambitious country can do with a little bit of ingenuity and a whole
lot of evil!

1456- An English judge reviews Joan of Arc's case and cancels her death
sentence. Unfortunately for her, she was put to death in 1431.

1492- Columbus proves how lost he really is by landing in the Bahamas,
naming the place San Salvador, and calling the people who live there
Indians.

1497- Amerigo Vespucci becomes the 7th or 8th explorer to discover the new
world, but the first to think of naming it in honor of himself...the United
States of Vespuccia!

1508- Michelangelo finally agrees to paint the ceiling of the Sistine
Chapel, but he still refuses to wash the windows.

1513- Ponce de Leon claims he found the Fountain of Youth, but dies of old
age trying to remember where it was he found it.

1522- Scientists, who know the world is flat, conclude that Magellan made it
all the way around by crawling across the bottom.

1568- Saddened over the slander of his good name, Ivan the Terrible kills
another 100,000 peasants to make them stop calling him Ivan the Terrible.

1607- The Indians laugh themselves silly as the first Euro-pean tourist to
visit Virginia tries to register as "John Smith."

1618- Future Generations are doomed as the English exe-cute Sir Walter
Raleigh, but allow his tobacco plants to live.

1642- Nine students receive the first Bachelor of Arts degrees conferred in
America, and immediately discover there are no jobs open for a kid with a
liberal arts education.

1670- The pilgrims are too busy burning false witches to observe the golden
anniversary of their winning religious freedom.

1755- Samuel Johnson issues the first English Dictionary, at last providing
young children with a book they can look up dirty words in.

1758- New Jersey is chosen as the site of America's first Indian
reservation, which should give Indians an idea of the kind of shabby living
conditions they can expect from here on out.

1763- The French and Indian War ends. The French and Indians both lost.

1770- The shooting of three people in the Boston Massacre touches off the
Revolution. 200 Years later, three shootings in Boston will be considered
just about average for a Sat-urday Night.

1773- Colonists dump tea into Boston Harbor. British call the act
"barbaric," noting that no one added cream.

1776- Napoleon decides to maintain a position of neutrality in the American
Revolution, primarily because he is only seven years old.

1779- John Paul Jones notifies the British, "I have just begun to fight!"
... and then feels pretty foolish when he discovers that his ship is
sinking.

1793- "Let them eat cake!" becomes the most famous thing Marie Antoinette
ever said. Also, the least diplomatic thing she ever said. Also, the last
thing she ever said.

1799- Translation of the Rosetta Stone finally enables scholars to learn
that Egyptian hieroglyphics don't say anything important. "Dear Ramses, How
are you? I am fine."

1805- Robert Fulton invents the torpedo.

1807- Robert Fulton invents the steamship so he has something to blow up
with his torpedo.

1815- Post Office policy is established as Andrew Jackson wins the Battle of
New Orleans a month after he should have received the letter telling him the
War of 1812 is over.

1840- William Henry Harrison is elected president in a landslide, proving
that the campaign motto, "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" is so meaningless that
very few can disagree with it.

1850- Henry Clay announces, "I'd rather be right than president," which gets
quite a laugh, coming from a guy who has run for president five times
without winning.

1859- Charles Darwin writes "Origin of the Species". It has the same
general plot as "Planet of the Apes," but fails to gross as much money.

1865- Union Soldiers face their greatest challenge of the war: getting
General Grant sober enough to accept Lee's surrender.

1894- Thomas Edison displays the first motion picture, and everybody likes
it except the movie critics.

1903- The opening of the Trans-Siberian Railway enables passengers from
Moscow to reach Vladivostok in eight days, which is a lot sooner than most
of them want to get there.

1910- The founding of the Boy Scouts of America comes as bad news to old
ladies who would rather cross the street by themselves.

1911- Roald Amundsen discovers the South Pole and confirms what he's
suspected all along: It looks very much like the North Pole!

1920- The 18th Amendment to the Constitution makes drinking illegal in the
U.S. so everyone stops. Except for the 40 million who don't stop!

1928- Herbert Hoover promises "a chicken in every pot and a car in every
garage," but he neglects to add that most Americans will soon be without
pots and garages.

1930- Pluto is discovered. Not the dog, stupid; the planet. The dog wasn't
discovered until 1938.

1933- German housewives begin to realize why that crazy wallpaper hanger
with the mustache never came back to finish his work.

1934- John Dillinger is gunned down by police as he leaves a Chicago movie
theater. And just to make the evening a complete washout, he didn't enjoy
the movie either.

1934- As if the Great Depression weren't giving business-men enough
headaches, Ralph Nader is born.

1938- Great Britain and Germany sign a peace treaty, there-by averting all
possibility of WWII.

Deadly Thinking

Clown: Good madonna, why mournest thou?

OLIVIA: Good fool, for my brother's death.

Clown: I think his soul is in hell, madonna.

OLIVIA: I know his soul is in heaven, fool.

Clown: The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother's soul being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen.
~ William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night, I.V

What happens to us when we die? As a Catholic (heck, as a believer in one God), I know there is an afterlife: Heaven or Hell, depending on how one’s life is lived. Some believe in reincarnation, that the soul comes back after death in another body, the body determined by how the soul lived in its previous life. Whatever the religion, most believe that what we do in this life affects what happens to us after we die. Our choices and our actions steer us in a specific direction, as regards our souls after our deaths. In fact, those that don’t follow a religion in the strict sense seem to be the only ones who deny any sort of afterlife.

Doing good deeds gains you eternal life, or a better reincarnation, or some sort of blessing. Doing evil deeds pushes you away from the ultimate goal of salvation. This is the given.

Let us look at two public figures who have led rather different lives, one pushing good, and the other pursuing evil. Normally it is hard to actually compare such figures, because the two subjects might not have the same background or understanding of what is good and what is evil. A man raised in Communist China might have a different understanding of good and evil compared to a man raised in Belgium. This, however, is not the case with our current comparison. The two figures not only come from the same background, same religion, etc, but are from the same family, and are in fact siblings.

I am referring to the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver and the late Edward Kennedy.

The Kennedys were raised Irish Catholic, went to the best schools money could buy (and they definitely had money, although the story behind the acquisition of that money is not for this post), and grew up into the world of politics, a world in which their father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., preceded them. This is the same Kennedy family that produced John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States.

Eunice Kennedy Shriver often played a part in the political careers of her brothers and her other relatives. Like her brothers, Eunice was a Democrat. She worked with Catholic charities throughout the country, and then helped found the movement for which she is best remembered: the Special Olympics. She devoted her life to helping the helpless. She was also a great supporter of the Pro-Life movement, supporting such notable organizations as Feminists for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, and Democrats for Life. She vocally reprimanded the exceedingly Pro-Choice slant of the Democratic Party, as shown in a letter in The New York Times urging then Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton to abandon the aggressive Democratic Pro-Choice platform.

She died as she lived, devoted to others, devoted to the faith.

Edward “Ted” Kennedy was also involved in politics. As a United States senator, Ted Kennedy had a hand in most of the political debates swirling since the 1960s. Unlike his sister Eunice, Ted Kennedy was a typical Democrat, not willing to argue against the party’s policy on abortion and other Pro-Life issues. If fact, he received grief from the Magisterium of the Church over his refusal to accept the Church’s teaching not only on abortion, but also on embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage. In a 1983 speech, Ted Kennedy said the following:

I am an American and a Catholic. I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it?

Ted Kennedy saw the world not as a matter of right or wrong, but more of “whatever you feel like,” even with regards to something universal like truth or patriotism. This is a far cry from his sister’s position on absolute truth.

Two siblings, two very different views.

This brings us to a very interesting realization I had upon hearing of Senator Kennedy’s death. I immediately said a “Requiem Aeternam” for him, something I’ve been trying to do whenever I hear of someone’s death. Then it hit me. What if he really needs the “Requiem”? We Catholics believe that God answers prayers in ways we cannot understand, since he is outside of time. Therefore, a prayer for something of which you don’t know the result can affect what happened in the past. A “Requiem” said for someone after they died could help that person reach heaven. We don’t know the state of anyone’s soul when the person dies. What we do know is that those who have led lives of sin need the prayers just as much, maybe even more, than the prayers of those who lived a good life.

Let’s connect the dots. We cannot be sure that either Kennedy is in heaven (neither, obviously, have been declared saints). We cannot say for certain that either one is in Hell (we just can’t know that. Sorry Dante). What we can do is pray.

This uncertainty is reflected in the above quote from Twelfth Night. Why pray for a soul that is in heaven? If one prays for a deceased loved one, it is a given that the soul needs the prayer, i.e., is in heaven. We therefore pray for those who are struggling in Purgatory, for they need our prayers. For all we know, our prayers helped them land there, rather than in Hell.

Pray for all deceased Kennedys, and all who have died, especially those who need our prayers the most.

What's Goin On

It has been over a month since I posted last. You would think with all the time I have, I would be doing things like posting blog posts or something productive.

Instead I job search.

But it’s ok if I don’t get a job. I did the math. I have enough in my account to pay off loans for the next 12 months, even if I don’t get any more income during that time.

I also have enough to start graduate school. But not at some really expensive school, mind you. No, I’m gonna get my masters from the Notre Dame Graduate School. No, not the fighting Irish. I’m going to attend the Graduate School of the College, where I went for my BA. I can only get the Masters in Theology, but there is a type of theology called Systematic Theology that’s kinda like a history/theology combo. Basically, as its name suggests, it sets down the truths of the faith in a “systematic” way, that is, orderly and following upon one another. Hence the emphasis of history. The record of history shows one even happening after the other. Church History shows the beliefs of the church developed and explained in time. Studying Patristics (the Church Fathers) allows the student to see the first men to really set down the beliefs of the Church, as well as looking at them in a historical context. Remember that the great anti-heretical definitions that we take for granted in today’s Church (the Nicene Creed, for example) are the result of Churchmen reacting to heresy.

So that’s what I’m studying. If I set it up right, I can finish in two years.

Its cheap too, did I mention that? One course (not credit hour, but course) at NDGS is $975. That’s about as much as a credit hour is at a big-time university.

Tell you all what. Check out the details at the graduate school’s website. If you are curious, I’m taking courses this Fall in Patristics, Holy Spirit and Ecclesiology, and Old Testament.

Three more announcements, please, everyone sit down.

I have joined a Young Adult softball team with other Young Adults from the Archdiocese of Washington. We are H. O. T. Y. A. M (Holy is Our Team Young Adult Ministry) and we are undefeated after three games. We won our first one, tied our second, and won our third. They are epic games, real nailbiters usually. Anyone around DC on Sundays for the rest of the summer should wander around all those ball fields (where the cricket players play) and look for a game. A good time is had by all.

Those crazy movie makers at Mirandum Pictures are at it again. Another short is in the works. I’m helping again, an opportunity I could not turn down. It’s an interesting little short, and they want extras, so if you’re in Front Royal sometime between August 4 and August 15, check it out.

On a related note, I’ve put a bunch of my movies made in college on You Tube, as promised. Check them out here.

And finally, check out the latest website for the Population Research Institute. They are trying to appeal to college-aged people, attempting to spread the word that OVERPOPULATION IS A MYTH! Some people still think this is the case (aka, the people running this country), and the word has to be heard. So watch the video, look around the site, and share it with others.

That’s all I got today. If you have any questions, please see me after class.

Some lively updates

Gosh, to read this blog you would think the most exciting thing to happen in my life was another Montauk Monster body.

Don't worry, that's not the case.

The biggest news by far is that I have, as one of my college friends put it, joined the fastest growing group of Americans: The Unemployed!!! (Coming to a theater this summer). That's right, I'm out of a job. I got the whole "We can't afford to keep you here" bit. Yes, even teachers get laid off. I can't say I didn't see it coming. There were a lot of 8th graders this year. There will be less than half their number this year. It was pretty crowded teacherwise up there this year, and I had a sneaky suspicion that one of us up there would get the cut. And being the weakest and youngest of the gang, I should have been more prepared.

It just goes to show you how we really don't know God's plan for us. I won't get into the details right now (its one of those personal things), but sufficed to say, I thought I had God figured out. I had told God "Ok God. If these three things are the case, then I'll do this." Well, the three things happened, I did what I said I'd do, and. . .

God threw me a monkey wrench. Now I definitely can't do what I was thinking of doing, and I need a job.

"I won't pay, I won't pay ya, no way
(now now) Why don't you get a job
Say no way, say no way ya, no way
(now now) Why don't you get a job" - The Offspring


And so the great job hunt begins. I've contacted a bunch of schools. A few have written back and said they did not need anyone for the upcoming school year. Its like a replay of last summer. I have also applied to jobs for the government. Fun Fun Fun. I have confidence, though, because God does not abandon those who trust in him, and He is who I turn to for help.

On a related note, I have a deep desire to videotape my efforts and make it into a Monster Quest parody. It might help with the coping, but it won't help me land a job.

Speaking of Monster Quest parodies, I have completed the Mammoth Movie, an infamous film I started filming my Sophomore year of college. It was going to be epic, and the finished product is a mere shadow of the original vision. However, it is finished, and God willing I'll find an internet connection strong enough to upload it for the world to see.

I finished reading J. R. R. Tolkien's retelling of Volsunga Saga. It was very good, although It would have been hard to follow without the notes or without having read the story before for class. Thanks Germanic One!

The Germanic One is one of my professors from college. Those who know him will know he is.

UMMMMMmmmmm......

WEDDINGS!!!

Bunches of friends keep getting hitched. Many are bloggers, most are not. Either way, they keep linking together in marriage.

Maybe I'll do a marriage post.



It's not like I don't have any free time now.

Another Montauk Monster?????

You may remember back last summer I posted about a creature that washed up on the shores of a beach in Montauk, New York. I believe the post was here. Long story short, some young people found a creature washed up on the shore. They took some pictures, and soon the whole thing became an internet sensation. So much so that even I had to post on it. So much so that the cable news stations picked it up (ok, to be fair, a dog has to sneeze funny, and it makes the cable news, but still, focus people). So much so that MONSTERQUEST mentioned it in a recent episode involving the Jersey Devil. You may remember me talking about the episode. I believe it was here.

No? Do you even read this blog?

More important than that though, is that they found ANOTHER MONTAUK MONSTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least, that is how it seems. There is video, and pictures, and, better yet, the body. That's right, the people who found this one thought ahead and have preserved the body in a cooler of ice. Hopefully someone somewhere will be willing to do the DNA tests (it turns out the other body was "stolen" before anyone could get the DNA needed for a test.

Oh, alright. Here's a picture of the thing. Pretty damn ugly, if you ask me.





It does look a lot like the monster from last year, although it does have an uncanny resemblance to the descriptions of the aliens from the CCB 2008 (look it up on YouTube, if you so desire). Also, check out the official Montauk Monster website. Its pretty sweet.

I'll try to post any developments as they emerge.

Trapped in the '70s!

Crack-pot theories are much more bizarre when the person developing them is neither on crack nor smoking pot. I fall into this category, and have for your delight a rather strange theory.

We, that is, the world, has somehow spun into the past. That’s right, we have somehow returned to the 1970s!!!!

Preposterous, you shout. Ibid, you are on crack. Wrong, I reply. My blood shot eyes are due to the pollen, not the drugs.

Snort.

So anyway, yeah, the ‘70s. The decade of disco and the end of Vietnam and the rise of other stuff. The ‘70s.

There are several pieces of evidence in support of my theory. It consists of uncanny similarities between the decade 30 years ago and our present world. Those who are weak at heart might want to avert your eyes.

1. 3D movies – In the 1970s there was a burst of 3D movies, that is, movies which had specific scenes where the audience placed special glasses on their faces so that the images on the screen would jump out at said audience. It is an exciting feeling when a monster or exploding piece of rock flies off of the screen and right at your face. What better than films like Jaws 3D to exploit this marvel of moviemaking? What could be more exciting than 3D movies? Not much, and there was a plethora of 3D films at that time, each one designed to grab the audience and drag them into the movie. It was the closest one could get to living the movie. 3D movies died down after the 1970s, occasionally coming out of their caves to remind the movie-going public what they were missing without plastic 3D glasses (which, by the way, do nothing to the everyday items in our world; it merely bathes them in a sickly reddish-bluish color). Everyone seemed to be consoled that the 3D movie craze was over. Then, in the last couple years, 3D movies magically appeared in theaters and on movie screens. Maybe it was the strange obsession with having movies in IMAX, or maybe it was the need to find something new and exciting, and since there is nothing “new” in the world of entertainment, the old had to be re-hashed. It seems that every animated movie that is coming out this year is also in 3D. Some are filmed to highlight the 3D effect, such as the recently released Monsters vs. Aliens. This is a neutral gift from the days of yore, since on the one hand it makes watching the movie without the 3D glasses slightly surreal, yet on the other hand, with the glasses it is freaking awesome itself.

2. Skinny Jeans – Grant it, girls have been wearing skinny jeans for a long time. In that sense, they have never gone out of style since their creation. I’m more concerned with the more recent phenomenon of boys wearing skinnies. Haven’t seen it anywhere, save for gay men? Well, one of my students, a boy, has taken it upon himself to start a fashion revolution. This boy has worn skinny jeans to every single dress down day this year. One of those days (I believe it was St. Patrick’s Day, of all days), he wore purple ones. Note to all men: When girls ask you where you got your pants, with interest of purchasing a similar pair, it is time to seek new clothes.

3. Gas prices – Holy Crap! Our gas prices have reached CRAZY high prices, to the point where there has been crowding around the cheapest stations. Now, I wasn’t alive then, but I saw the signs and pictures, and have heard the stories of how there was a similar problem, oh I don’t know, in the 1970s. Now is not the time, my fellow Americans, to buy a gas guzzling monster truck. Now is the time to buy a more energy efficient car. Or, God forbid, walk or bike ride, or ride a bus, or a metro, or WALK! Gas prices might get higher, but so might the college students if they legalize pot. There are other things to do with our panic.

4. A Democrat is our President – After 8 years, the Dems have taken over the highest office in the nation. Not only is it a Democrat (not an evil in itself, mind you), but it is a FLAMING LIBERAL SOCIALIST! There, I said it. There is no middle ground when you ignore the other side. Yeah, how’s your Hope and Change working out for you, eh? If Good Ol’ Jimmy Carter was here. . . Oh well. But wait, there’s more. Our current president ran on a platform against the previous president, and won the heart of the trusting nation, including almost everyone I work with, as well as almost every parent at the school. So too was the case in the ‘70s, when the Dems charmed the common man. History repeats itself again. Is that really change we can believe in?

5. We are involved in unpopular foreign conflicts – Iraq and Afghanistan are not, obviously, the first wars of their kind in our history. Americans have a tendency to stick our noses in everyone else’s damn business. It happened at the end of the ‘60d and into the ‘70s in Vietnam. That was a PR disaster for us, as are the wars in the Middle East. Now, the similarity between the two wars has been made by other commentators, and even by protestors themselves. The above comment about our new president are tied in here, since the democrats running in the ‘70s promised a quick removal from Vietnam, as did Obama. There are even anti-war songs in our popular music. As MC Lars says in his song “I Generation,” “No Vietnam for us, yo Iraq its on!” The connection is there.

6. Bob Dylan has a new album out – Speaking of protest singers, Bob Dylan has released a new album. Now, this album isn’t necessarily filled with protest songs, but the fact that Mr. Dylan is still making music reminds one of the 1970s, for sure.

As you can see, there are several points in defense of my thesis. As a final note, I will remind you that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

I will take any questions from the audience.

"Good Friday"

I began writing this poem a couple of weeks ago, when my students were taking their TerraNova testing. It is based on the Stations of the Cross. I will probably make it better later, but for now, I'll post what I have written. Think T. S. Eliot.

“Good Friday”

- Matthew B. Rose

Deus meus, Deus meus,

O Lord, save us, save us,

Through your mercy

Save us.

Adam, see what you started,

Eve, see what you did,

All your sins, and yours and mine,

He was somehow able to forgive.

Hear that sound, it is a gong,

A solitary steady song,

Hear it signal the end of strife,

And the beginning of our newer life.

I

There is anger in your eyes

Wrath unbridled

Betrayed and shaken by their lies

Truth defiled.

Peace to you is all I say

Hope so willing

Serenity please, I pray

Pain o’er spilling

Heart still hoping,

Head still bleeding

Love o’er flowing

II

The other day, when we were walking

(we are almost out of time)

I remember you said something serious

(jokingly, of course, of course)

something about a kingdom

(my kingdom for a horse?)

maybe it was something else

(what about hands)

that’s it, I remember

(The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand)

III

A man lays broken

Words unspoken

A priceless token

Freely given

But still riven

And yet he looks up

Breathes

And gets up.

IV

“My Lord.” “My Lady fair.”

“Speak lover.”

“Purest Beloved: Do you remember,

long ago,

a gift and blessing from my Lord?”

“Your Lord?”

“The Lord.”

“I remember misty warmth and whispery words,

Some unspoken, all were heard.”

“And I?”

“The Gift.”

“As well I do remember. His presence made present.”

“A Gift for all seasons.”

“I love you, mommy.”

“I miss you.”

“And I you, but remember,

I make all things new.”

V

My God, My God,

Why am I here?

Why the tortures

Horrors

Grimly I fear

This Dies Irae

It seems so dark

Lonely, lonesome

O God, where are you?

Answer Me!

VI

Come, all you who pass by.

Can you hear them moan and sigh?

Hot tears, bitter tears,

All your fears,

All those years,

Were they a waste?

I will not let it be a waste.

Here, man, if you will not turn back,

Here is a piece of my own slack,

What I should have been doing,

Hopefully, by this penance proving,

You Lord, are not alone.

VII

I can see Him now, coming up this way,

Murmuring words no man can say.

Worming his way along the path,

He trusted all, all for their worth

Broken, bleeding, he heard their pleading

A mother in love, a Father above,

Spittle flying, Love is dying.

I hear crying.

O My Lord.

See Him bearing, loving, sharing,

Falling, stalling, sighing, rising.

VIII

Mommy, who’s that man?

Why is he sighing?

Mommy, who’s that lady?

Why is she crying?

Mommy, who’s that man?

Why is she bleeding?

Mommy, who are these ladies?

Why are they weeping?

Why are you weeping?

Mommy?

Mommy?

IX

Why doesn’t he stay there?

It’s good for him, the old dusty air.

Kings of Kings have trodden here,

Holding dear

Sacred relics of God and Man,

Keeping them hidden, doing what they can to help God.

No, this man won’t enjoy the dirt.

He will not rest, His loins are girt.

Spit now, hit him hard,

Split his back, make it shards

Of broken glass.

This stubborn ass

Is making me mad.

Let’s kill him here, it’s not that bad

No.

Go.

We are to see he makes it there.

Executions are really not fair,

Working hard, little pay,

Hearing convicts whine half the day

Well, now he’s getting up.

Marcus, hand me that cup.

I’ll splash some water on his face.

No man earned such a disgrace.

And on we go; no we’ll see

What Hell awaits us on top of Calvary.

X

My pretty bird, sing for me.

My, what beautiful feathers,

What beautiful fetters.

I’ll take them off you,

And your feathers too.

My bird, my worm, dove turned to dirt.

Aww, you cry. I’ll wipe your face.

The back of my hand cleans that disgrace.

Foolish man, you are nothing now.

(Put me down for five and seven)

Weep man, cry out.

What is with him?

Get the nails, get the hammer.

I lost his robe, but I got some cloth.

Cloth for dusting, good ol’ dusting.

Ashes to ashes; dust from dust.

XI

“My friends, you are my closest ones.

You alone I can trust.

You are my closest companions,

James, here, you have some dust

Stuck to your shirt,

There, cleaned off the dirt.

My three friends,

Peter, James, and John,

Are closer to me than the rising sun.

I tell you this, so that you might have faith,

When all your hope falls under the weight

Of the coming sorrow.

I will die, come back, and leave.

Yes, I have a trick up my sleeve.

But after I’m gone, I warn you of danger,

I tell you now, to calm your anger.

James, you first will give up your life,

Bowing your head at a glorified knife.

Peter, you too will give me your all,

But your body will rise, not fall.

John, you will be tortured and burnt,

But you will die old, and tell all you learnt.

This I tell you, to prepare your heart,

So you remember this when I depart.”

I remember his words, and his sweet thoughts,

But would never expect this horror, this rot,

This evil to innocence. What did he do

To deserve such evil for speaking truth?

I see the nails, I hear the sound.

I can count his bones, his body sinks down.

I cannot bear to look at him, but I can’t stop.

I’ll watch his family drop

To the ground and pray,

Here at the cross I will stay.

XII

+ Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.

I’m not saying they aren’t culpable,

But they don’t know better.

They choose this evil, but they don’t know why.

Working through them? Lord, I understand.

So forgive them their part, Lord, if they are willing.

Not my will, though, but Thine.

+ This day you will be with me in Paradise.

I know you, brother, I know you are sorry.

I’ve seen your face before, my friend,

And I know you know who I Am.

Thank you for the sympathies,

I’m indebted to you.

For you, I give a gift of gifts,

Salvation for your sorrow.

Come, baptized in blood,

Into your reward.

+ Woman, behold your son; Man, behold your mother.

Mom.

John.

I need you both to be strong.

I know you understand, both of you.

You are my family, the ones who stayed.

So mommy, I give you my friend.

Friend, you are my new brother.

Yet not just you, you know that by now,

But all, from now to the end,

All who bow and pray and praise the glory

Of this sacrifice.

Mommy, you are their mother.

John, you are their brother.

Be with each other as mother and brother,

Parent and Son.

+ I thirst.

I can’t feel my throat. It burns.

It is yours, O Lord.

I need to finish this. Lord, help me.

So thirsty. So dry.

+ My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?

I am this Psalm, and I start it now.

I finish it Lord, to glorify your name.

Help me,

Keep me,

Take me.

I have been the worm.

I have had my hands and feet pierced.

I can count all my bones.

They circle under me, like a pack of dogs.

How accurately is the prediction!

How thorough the fulfillment.

To the Greater Glory of God.

+ It is Finished.

I have fought the good fight,

I have done Your will.

The Passover is complete,

I have drunken the last cup.

This is my Last Will and Testament.

This is it. This is the Point of No Return.

I can do no more.

+ Into Your hands I command my Spirit

You have redeemed me, O Faithful God.

XIII

He’s dead? Already?

I was sure he would remain,

A living human stain,

Hanging up there, he should have been good

For another few hours of gory food.

I cannot believe this news.

You are sure? You saw it too?

Really?

Fine.

Do what you will. Take him down.

Let him be buried or thrown

Out. Get rid of the body. I see

Nothing more to this man’s story.

He’s dead and gone,

He’s dead and gone.

XIV

I am here, watching the hole,

Filled with a rock and still

There is danger, stupid anger.

I heard him speak once;

He was very good. Like a god.

Maybe he was a god.

Maybe he was God.

So we killed God and buried him in a hole.

He’s in the earth, dust to dust.

Dirty man, rotting away.

And here I sit and do nothing.

His friends, his followers,

They pray, they hope.

For what?

Maybe this isn’t the end after all.