A short update:

I haven't been able to post for over a month... but for a good reason. My wife and I are mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically preparing for the arrival of our first baby, and for that reason(s) alone, I just haven't found the time to motivate myself for an extended period of blogging. Ah well, I'm sure it will pick up soon.

Nevertheless, I thought anyone who passes by this blog should know that the ecumencial council that discusses the rehabilitation of the Latin and Orthodox Churches has agreed on the primacy of the papacy. That's pretty big news, since the primacy of the Petrine Office has always been the main source of dispute between the two Churches.

Sadly, there is still so much to do. The Eastern Orthodox Churches themselves are separated from one another, and then there is the whole matter of reincorporating theologically and canonically the entire group of Orthodox Churches. And not to be outdone, there is also the matter of the Orthodox laity accepting the reunion, which will take some time.

But still, it's a wonderful bit of news.

What's wrong with the Mass...

A 16 year old Catholic from Baltimore addresses people within his own parish who scoff at the Old Rite (h/t to The Cafeteria is Closed):

I am 16 years old, and for the past 11 months I have attended the traditional Latin Mass weekly, while still attending the Novus Ordo Mass during the week. Because of this, I decided to address certain points made by Carroll Sterne in the Sept. 6 edition of The Georgia Bulletin. Mr. Sterne speaks about the type of Mass that someone of a younger generation is drawn to, and I thought that a teenager’s point of view might be helpful.

Mr. Sterne in his letter gives voice to the opinion of many of today’s liturgists when he says that no one from a younger generation would be drawn to the Latin Mass (many take this even further and assume that we would not like a reverent Novus Ordo Mass either). This opinion causes many of those who plan modern liturgies to do veritable back flips in an attempt to draw teenagers and young adults in. Sometimes this works, but it has a side effect: by doing these things, liturgists show that they have absolutely no faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to change the lives of those in my generation.My generation knows about this lack of faith, we are able to see it every time we go to a “teen Mass” and experience priests ad-libbing prayers in an attempt to make them more relevant to us.

This lack of faith backfires; it sends us the message that we also should distrust the power of the liturgy, and it also can turn the Mass into something of a joke.

After experiencing this for months, I attended a Traditional Latin Mass and experienced something that I’d never seen before: Here was a priest who expected my life to be changed without adding anything to the Mass in an attempt to bring this change about. This priest had perfect faith in the power of the liturgy, and it showed. It was beautiful. The traditional Mass did more to change my life then any “relevant” teen Mass ever did.

Ethan Milukas, Peachtree City

I don't think anyone could have said it better or more succinctly. I felt the same way about 'youth' Masses when I was his age: They were cheesy, irreverent, stripped of all sanctity and ultimately entirely useless to us as young people. It was as if those Masses were designed to turn people off. It wasn't until I was 19 that I actually encountered a reverent Novus Ordo Mass, and that was in Victoria, a diocese that was almost completely killed off by Bishop Remi de Roo.

Advertisers say that we cannot estimate just how low the public will go. I think that's correct, but it's not something that we as Catholics should ever be measuring or tailoring our liturgies by. There are ways to celebrate a Novus Ordo Mass with P/W music that do not detract from the ability of the laity to focus on Christ. The problem arises when liturgists, music directors and priests spurn traditionally Catholic forms of worship because they, at first glance, seem out of touch with modern sensibilities. They couldn't be more wrong.

Young Catholics basically have two choices in most parishes these days. Either you stick it out with sub-par liturgies, tepid homilies and lazy celebrations of Christ's Sacrifice, or you just stop going. There isn't a middle ground anymore. And when you stop and consider the pressures placed upon young Catholics by a very anti-Catholic society, you can plainly see with so many young men and women simply choose the latter.

Catholic Bishops: Plan B Abortafacient is OK

Plan B, a known abortafacient (just read the packaging), has been approved by the Conneticut Catholic Conference of Bishops for use in Catholic hospitals. The bishops claim that Plan B has not been decisively proven to be abortion causing in all cases, so therefore it can be used for 'rape victims' in Catholic hospitals. If wondering just why the bishops would do this, join the masses. Plan B is a self-admitted abortion causing agent; it even says so on the box they come in. And if you're wondering if this is a trickle-down effect from some cloudy USCCB pronouncement, it isn't: Plan B was prohibited by the national bishops' group because of its abortafacient effects and because it also falls under the category of contraception.

It's hard to find the patience or charity for bishops like this. Thankfully it's Sundary and I know God will give the grace to forgive and to pray for these men.

What makes little sense....

... is how the political left so warmingly embraced Iran's lunatic president (yes, the man is actually a lunatic - he belongs to a apocalyptic cult which believes the Madhi will return and destroy the non-Muslim and Shia peoples, and leads a regime that regularly rapes, tortures and executes its fellow countrymen). I can understand why some people wanted to hear him speak - listening a cunning madman is apparently a stimulating experience - but I don't understand why a dictator who so ardently opposes so many key leftist beliefs is nevertheless asked to come and speak to a receptive audience at one of the USA's most prestigious universities.

A quick rundown: Ahmandinejad opposes abortion, homosexuality, women's rights, basic freedom of expression and political dissension. Most Americans of any political persuasion will therefore find something to hate about this guy, but why did the outcry thus come from the conservatives? You end up thinking that the only reason the left actually has time for him is because he is anti-West and anti-American, which seems to be the cause-celebre of the political left these days.

It's the first time I've heard this...

Condoms in Africa is an issue everyone has an opinion on, and thankfully there are pretty much only two opinions at that. Either you support the spread of condoms in African to help prevent HIV infection, or you don't; it's all rather simple. What you rarely hear is any grand conspiratorial rant that suggests European condom producers are intentionally infected condoms with HIV. And when you do hear something like that, which you have to admit, even if you are opposed to the 'condom solution', you're more likely to hear it expressed on a message board by a teen-age fundamentalist. But no, the first person to make this claim just happened to be the Archbishop of the Catholic Church in Mozambique. Awesome.

Gerald of The Cafeteria is Closed tells us that Archbishop Francisco Chimoio recently informed the press that he was aware of at least two condom producers who were infecting their product. Chimoio noticeably does not name a manufacturer, but nevertheless stands by his claim. Now although I don't really think a company would stoop to this, it isn't entirely plausible if you approach the claim from a financial perspective: The more African that have AIDS/HIV, the more condoms the UN will purchase to import to Africa, and the more money condom makers earn.

We'll see how this story develops.

Becoming Less Bloggish

I was reading an excellent blog today and I came across the blogger's admission that during his first few years of blogging, his writing style was unforgivably 'bloggish'. By this, I take it, he means awkward, verbose, sarcastic and fragmented, oh, and snarky too. Those five are probably the most common characteristics to be found in the blogosphere, unfortunately much more common than elegant prose, proper diction and common sense.

So with this in mind, I've decided to try and write more serious and thoughtful posts. The benefits I think are twofold: People who stumbled across my blog won't be offended by a particular callous or ridiculous remark, and my own writing style will eventually improve.

Now on that last point, the improvement of my writing, I'll have to work a lot harder. I was weaned on the style of writing that is pushed upon Political Science students at Canadian universities, and not being blessed with any inante gifts of composition myself, the result is the current standard of Augustine's Poodle. To improve then, I will begin making more sensible and sometimes longer posts on more sensible subjects (rather than Catholics wearing funny clothes). I will also return to emulating the writing style of my favourite non-fiction authors, so no more Robert Ludlum spy novels for the time being.

Check back for updates.

Catholic Frumpiness

Kathy Shaidle at the soon to be renamed RelapsedCatholic Blog has taken the time to make several posts on the issue of Catholic fashion. Or maybe I should call it the issue of the Catholic lack of fashion. By this she, and I too, mean the general absence of any taste in clothing found in so many of the young men and women populating the 'Catholic revival'. Arm-pit level dress pants for boys, curtain skirts and mock head scarfs for girls - at age 20. You know what I'm talking about.

So I've decided to put together a few points - randomly right now, but maybe one day in order. Let's begin:

1) Fashion is OK. I am not by any means a stylish person, nor am I outrageously good looking nor blessed with an adonis-physique (quite the opposite). But I at least know that in our day and age, one needs to keep up at least minimally with the winds of fashion to be taken seriously by peers in our society. Jesus didn't wear animals skins, John the Baptist did, and people thought John was a pretty crazy guy and most people didn't listen to him, which was okay with John. Jesus from what we understand liked a good wine and party, spent a lot time in the market place, and He is God for goodness' sake. If Jesus kept up with fashion, you should too.

2) Dressing your children like they are headed to an audition for the re-union of Little House on the Prairie is not fair and possibly child abuse. It doesn't matter that they might be home-schooled or wear a uniform to school, they can still look good in public. The flood pants that were cute at age four are downright embarassing and repulsive at age 17. Parents please remember this.

3) Engage the culture with your beliefs, not with your clothes. This speaks for its self. People should not know how Catholic you are by your garb unless you are a monk, nun or priest.

That should do it for now.

Finding God in Movies

Two good friends of mine, my wife and I went and saw the 'new' movie Superbad last weekend. It is a raunchy affair: There is menstrual mockery, cartoon male genitalia, teenage drunkenness (something I know nothing about) and goofy cops. If I were not a product of the pseudo-Catholic school system of Ontario, I'm sure I would have been revolted by the film, if it weren't so close to how so many young teenage men act these days.

Amidst the raunch, writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg still however manage to get a moral message across - which is remarkable in comparison to other films of the same genre, like American Pie, whose only moral commandment was to have none. The fat oaf Seth learns that girls are not simply the material sum of their sexual parts, and the skinny dork Evan keeps a drunken girl, whom he secretly loves, from doing something she'll regret with him. Sure, it's the best way to sell decent morality, but it works.

-------------

And to the few you may still visit this blog, I'm terribly sorry for not posting anything of meaning lately. I've been very busy with moving, my new job, God, and my lovely, 6 months pregnant wife. Until I am able to post more frequently here, please visit Catholic Explorers, which is a better blog anyway.

God Bless!

Oh, and here's an ultrasound our new gift from God:

Remember that?

If there's one thing I know, Jesus love never failed me.

This isn't news...

... but that doesn't mean it isn't worth blogging about.

According to CNN, Barack Obama mistakenly referred to the political leader of Canada as 'president', instead of prime minister. Obama's opponents, Democrat and Republican alike, have taken time out of their busy schedules to roast the Illinois' Senator's gaffe, however trivia it may be. The Obama supporters on the other hand, have been quick to point out that this is just an honest mistake, and one that really isn't important or even indicative of the character or intelligence of the man.

As a Canadian, I can say with complete honesty that I don't really care what some American presidential hopeful whose lack of political experience makes Michael Ignatieff look like Wilfred Laurier, and whose main appeal his is novel skin pigmentation, yea I don't really care what he knows about Canada. But if I were American, I would. And if I were from Illinois, I'd be pissed.
Why? Several reasons. Illinois trades extensively with Canada. It's economy is synced with our own. Some 3,000 jobs in Illinois are dependent upon trade with Canada, and Chicago's tourism industry is largely propped up by Canadian visitors. Since Obama is a senator from Illinois, you'd think he would know something about Canada. At least that Canada has a prime minister, which is different in definition and praxis than a president. And Obama is a Harvard graduate, not some Stanford post grad, which is supposed to mean something. Or maybe look at it this way: If Obama referred to the Queen of the UK as King, or the Pope as Dalai Lama, people would be questioning his abilities (like we've been doing with Bush for the last 7 years).

Maybe this gaffe isn't indicative of anything, and Obama will go on to becoming the Great Golden-Brown Hope the Democrats have been waiting for since Jesse Jackson decided there were too many Jews in New York City back in the 80's. Still maybe it is something, especially since Americans have had enough of bumbling buffoons running their country.

What do you think? Brick over the head?

A new pro-life/anti-abortion campaign is starting in Canada. It will feature graphic images of aborted children on billboards and on the sides of trucks. I have argued against this type of activism in this space before, because I think that (a) people are repulsed more by the images than by what caused the depicted scene and (b) it alienates women and men who have sought and procured abortions. I think the television adverts for the pregnancy crisis centres that the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons fund in BC are much more effective, as they appeal to a person's sense of remorse and regret, lingering pain from an abortion, and offer a means to reconciliation and proper counselling. I even think the movie 'Knocked Up', which was rude and raunchy, did more for the pro-life cause than any projectile plastic baby or graphic image has done in the last 30 years.

You can find more info on this campaign at Life Site News.

Contra Smut

With all the Catholic and Christian blogs out there, you'd think there would be more discussion of pornography. We talk about abortion, capital punishment and war all the time, but porn? Not so much.

Considering how widespread pornography is, especially on the Internet (I recall reading that 2 of every 3 websites contained sexually explicit images) it's clearly time for a change. Engaging the culture as Catholics and other Christians should means engaging every part of that culture, including pornography. Think about it, it alone comprises several facets of the culture of death, including but not limited to abortion, contraception, sexual abuse, rape, violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted disease, divorce, avarice, lust and so forth. Pornography is also one of the leading causes for divorce, according to several studies conducted in the USA and Canada.

So let's get started. There's the Serenellians, who are named after an Italian man who raped and killed a young girl after following impulses he felt after watching pornography, after which he repented and returned to the Church. There's this article by a former porn 'actress', who describes in painful detail her experiences in the sex industry. And here's an article written by a Kansas Bishop on the dangers of pornography. These three are good starting point.

One thing I know most people are not aware of is the drug and alcohol abuse that so many women involved in the sex industry fall into. Especially as people become more and more desensitized to pornography, they become less aware of the consequences of pornography and prostitution (which is what porn really is), particularly upon the women involved. Sure, there are the few women who voluntarily work in the sex industry out of desire and do not become involved with substance abuse, but they are in the minority. Most of the women in porn are there because of poverty, familial estrangement and prior sexual abuse. And once they're in, it becomes harder and harder to come out.

And yet in our enlightened/benighted culture, we're becoming gradually less and less resistant to the spread of pornography. Many people my age do not see it as an evil, but just another thing Europeans do better than us (seriously). And can you blame them? What's left of the feminist movement is more preoccupied with careerism and restrictions on birth control than an entire industry founded upon physical and psychological rape. Community leadership has balked under 'freedom of speech' and 'artistic expression' arguments for the last 20 years. Church leadership has failed catastrophically, on sexual ethics as a whole, and nonetheless the evils of pornography.

What we really need is young adults especially taking a stand on pornography, since we're the ones who have grown up in a society permeated by it. We haven't bought into this artless naivete about smut like older generations because we didn't have a chance to be naive about it (by age 12, most boys have seen sexually explicit images). We need to pressure our ecclesial and political leaders into addressing, at the very least, the issue and its effects upon society. So look up your local mayor, bishop, or MP, and let them know.

Bless your children

What a week it has been. Work, husbanding, and finding a new place.

My friend Charles has a wonderful post on parenthood over at the Catholic Explorers blog. He mentions, among other heartwarming things, that he has begun to bless his son every morning, something he plans to do forever. That has me thinking about the similarity between our understanding of God the Father, and of human fatherhood. It's an amazing thing, to think that Our Father will bless us every day without our request, giving us graces that we will probably never ever be fully aware of until the end of our earthly lives. It's another amazing thing to think that as mothers and fathers, we can help new generations to realize and experience God's enduring love by such simple actions as blessing our children everyday in the morning.

Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun Interview

The First Things weblog (from some reason I don't like calling it just a blog, weird) has another excellent offering for us Catholic freeloaders today in the form of a lengthy interview with Hong Kong's Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun. From reading it, you get the feeling that Zen is a very humble, careful, caring and smart person. It's a fascinating insight into the trials and triumphs, however few there may be at the moment, of the Catholic Church in China.

I can't help but wonder if the Church in China is experiencing what our Church in Canada, or the Church in the UK or the USA, will suffer through in the coming years, if as expected, unrestricted Catholicism becomes public-enemy number one to our governments. Certainly we have seen this happen in Boston and in the entire UK, where the local and national governments there have tried to force Catholic adoption providers to send children into homosexual relationships. In response, I'm sure you know, the providers chose not to continue their services, and, in Boston, have all closed down. Some call it the hard line approach, but you can't begin to compromise Catholic teaching just to make a few political points.

Which is something Zen says the Church in China didn't always do well, the hard line stuff. It cooperated frequently with the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, a government controlled body, in order to carry out its mission, even at the expense of its mission. This resulted in the two Churches, the Patriotic and the Underground, both of which, confusingly, have valid sacraments. The Patriotic Church receives its funding from the government, is controlled by the CCPA, and basically is the bureaucracy which administers the Church, officially, in China. It recently caused much uproar by allowing the illicit ordination of a bishop at the behest of the Communist government. If we look at things comparatively, we can see just what could happen in the West if the Church didn't take a hard line approach and maintain its autonomy.

Richard Neuhaus on the NAB

On today's First Things blog, Fr. Neuhaus takes the New American Bible to task, again, for yet another ludicrous translation of a passage that is not only completely different in some ways to earlier translations of the passage, but ultimately misleading as well. Neuhaus writes:

The New American Bible (NAB), an unfortunate translation episcopally imposed upon Catholics for readings at Mass, has prompted earlier comment in First Things (see here and here). The problem keeps coming back, not least in pastoral counseling. Take the woman who had had it with her husband’s lying to her. I mentioned to her Our Lord’s admonition to forgive “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22). That’s the way it reads in every widely used English translation, including the Douay-Rheims, an earlier English translation used by Catholics. Jesus obviously intended hyperbole, indicating that forgiveness is open-ended. Keep on forgiving as you are forgiven by God, for God’s forgiving is beyond measure or counting.

But this woman had been reading her NAB, according to which Jesus said we should forgive not “seventy times seven,” but “seventy times.” She had been keeping count, and her husband was well over his quota. Then there is Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, where in both passages Jesus says: “But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress.” In other widely used English translations, it is “unfaithfulness” or “marital unfaithfulness.” The Douay-Rheims says “excepting in the case of fornication.”

In both passages, the NAB puts it this way: “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery.” Meaning a previous marriage had not been annulled by the diocesan marriage tribunal? Whatever.

Now to be perfectly fair, in the three passages mentioned there are ancient authorities that lend some support for the NAB translation. For instance, some ancient texts of Matthew 19 read “he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” which is closer to the NAB version. But in the tradition of translation, scholars have overwhelmingly decided that the manuscripts referring to unchastity or unfaithfulness are to be preferred.

Neuhaus has said time and time again, that legalistic literal accuracy should not be the driving force behind any translation of the Bible. Unfortunately, no one at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which owns the NAB and the right to enforce its use in every liturgy from Astoria to Atlanta, ever wants to listen to him. Which is a shame; American Catholics have thus been forced to read a drab, deconstructionist and awkward translation at every Mass. Neuhaus continues:

The NAB is a banal, linguistically inept, and misleading translation. Why did the bishops force it upon the Catholic people, demanding that it and it alone be used in the readings of the Mass? Various answers are given: Because it was produced by the guild of Catholic biblical scholars and, while it may not be very good, at least it is ours. Because the bishops hold the copyright, and charges for using the NAB in Mass guides and elsewhere is a cash cow for the financially strapped bishops conference. Because the bishops really don’t care whether Catholics use a worthy and reliable translation of the Bible.

So in the end, it's probably about the money. That's how it seems to me at least, in no small part to Neuhaus's constant polemicising, but also because no one at the USCCB has ever really explained the bishop's tendencies to become remarkably fascist when it comes to biblical translations. This understanding is given further credence, I think, by the fact that national bishop's conferences are not a mandated ecclessial bureaucracy and receive no monetary support from the Vatican. These conferences, most of which started up after Vatican 2, are therefore reliant on copyrights, fundraising and properties, and are having a hard time proving their relevancy to the laity (and probably Rome as well).

And does anyone else think it's ironic that the USCCB fought tooth and nail against the motu proprio, in lieu of Neuhaus's comments on the NAB? As far as I know, the NAB has not been translated back into Latin, which would mean that a different Bible would have to be used at Old Rite liturgies. That could mean lower demand for new NAB translations (which come out every other year for some reason) and higher demand for say, the Douay-Rheims. I'm sure the USCCB, in it's precarious financial state (all though not so precarious that it prevented the bishops from meeting at a five-star Las Vegas hotel for their last meeting) wanted nothing to do with a papal directive that could ultimately cost them their monopoly on Catholic Bibles in the US.

Demographic Divide?

The Cafeteria is Closed blog has an interesting link to a recent Time Magazine article in which a 'young, progressive Catholic' publicly discusses his desire for a universal, reverent, Latin 'Old Rite' liturgy, as opposed to the experimental forms of the vernacular Novus Ordo Rite. It has me wondering, is this an area in which young Catholics are in agreement, progressive or orthodox? In my conversations with other young Catholics, I have yet to encounter any opposition to the 'Old Rite', only curiosity, and hopefulness - hopefulness that one day the liturgy will be at least consistent between local parishes, if not around the whole world, and even with the Church of History.

On the other hand, I tend to encounter more concern from older Catholics, ages forty and up, particularly those who are either currently employed by the Church in some capacity or who simply were 'young Catholics' during the 1960s and 1970s. These concerns are now well published, in the wake of the Motu Proprio of course, and seem to revolve around the idea that different liturgies will factionalize the Church. And although I don't necessarily agree with that concern, it is valid: These are the folks who lived through previous liturgical changes, and they remember quite well that it wasn't a harmonious time for the Church by any stretch of the imagination.

All the same, I think those fears will ultimately be assuaged by the eagerness of young Catholics to recreate the Catholic identity through a more reverent liturgy, 'Old Rite' or Novus Ordo. And I think the Pope hopes for such an outcome as well. If there's one thing that most young Catholics can agree on, it's that the Haugen-Haas ice-cream liturgy has to go. Dominus Vobiscum!

Support Free Dominion

Free Dominion, a socially conservative blog, has been served notice that the ironically named Human Rights Commission is considering charging it with a violation of the Human Rights Act after a woman, Marie-Line Gentes, took issue with comments posted on that blog by a visitor. The complainant, who is not a Muslim, took issue with these remarks made by someone named Bill Whatcott:

04/24/06 "I can't figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals."

03/09/06 "I defy Islamic censorship and speak about what I believe is the truth
about violent Islamism and its threat to religious liberty in Canada."

And:

"How many of us pay nothing but lip service to the Muslim threat here in Canada?"
"Probably everyone want to jail a Muslim."
"I have to ask why we are importing them here?"
"Islamic fundamentalism and its threat to Canada's religious and civil liberties."

You don't have to personally support Bill's comments, or even read Free Dominion, to realise that something's amiss here. First, Bill should be able to tell anyone anywhere what his beliefs are; that's called freedom of speech and is of the utmost importance to the health of democracy. Second, an unelected, unaccountable, shadowy bureaucracy like the Human Rights Commission (HRC) should not be able to 'sue' Canadians based upon a person's sensitivity level. The HRC is supposed to deal with discrimination and authentic hate speech, not moderate public discussion, although opponents of the HRC have always claimed that's exactly what it was made for. Left or right, progressive or conservative, you have to admit that when something like this happens, all of our rights suffer.

Support Free Dominion, publish these quotes on your own blog. Cherish freedom of speech.

ps - To those who complain that this approach is heavy handed, of course it is. About as heavy handed than filing a complaint with the HRC about something you read on the internet.

Motus, Catholics and a Waning Summer

Phew. Time has just breezed by me again. I guess this time I do have an excuse for not posting in over two weeks: I started a new job (a crappy one, but an honest one) and my wife is pregnant (cop-out).

A lot has happened in the last two weeks, especially if you are a Catholic. The long expected motu proprio was released, finally, to applause from some and revulsion from many, especially the media and the media-friendly. And just after the motu proprio, the Vatican released a document which basically reaffirmed the 2,000 year old Catholic dogma that there is no 'Church' outside the one, true Church found by Christ Himself.

So where to begin? I admit that I haven't written my Bishop to demand a Tridentine Mass just yet. I understand that it will take some time for my local priests to learn it and even more time for my Catholic peers to be comfortable with the celebration of a Mass so foreign to our current liturgical norms. But once I know there is a priest who can celebrate a Tridentine Mass I will demand/attend. Why? I'm no fan of Latin particularly, although as a self-styled pragmatist I do support the return of widespread use of the universal Catholic language. I think my interest in that Mass has to do with one of my experiences at WYD 2005. I met a young priest who was a member of the Society of St. Paul, which is an order that is permitted to only celebrate Mass in the Tridentine Rite. This priest told me that there was no better liturgy in which to contemplate the sacrifice and the gift which Christ gives at every Mass. It's been two years now, and I'm getting ancy.

Of course the press, and some unremarkable Bishops, had a field day creating a public litany of complaints after the release of the motu proprio. Most felt it was a 'conservative' reform of the reforms of Vatican 2, which, to anyone with a brain, it isn't, because the Paul VI Mass has nothing to do with directly with Vatican 2, and everything to do with the need introduce the vernacular and congregational participation into the liturgy, a need which was first articulated by the famous liturgist Romano Guardini in the early 1920s, some 40 years or so before the Council.

And if you think it stopped there, you we're wrong. As I mentioned before, the Vatican followed up the motu proprio with a statement on the nature of the Catholic Church and other Christian churches. The true faith, according to us Catholics, resides in the Catholic Church. Other Christian churches thus are not Churches in the same sense as the Catholic Church, but 'ecclesial bodies' in which the Holy Spirit resides and graces are found, but which lack the full efficacy of the Catholic Church. So basically, the Vatican decided to drop this oft-forgotten facet of Catholicism just after it had already dropped the motu proprio bombshell. While it made for a busy two weeks for journalists, bishops, and commentators with an axe to grind with orthodox Catholicism, it also got everything out of the way at once.

Just what were they raising awareness about?

For those of us questioning the logic behind holding several environmentally wasteful concerts just to 'raise awareness', we know have an answer.

Someone certainly raised awareness.

Live Earth is now dead

It's over. Some 74,500 tons of green-house gases were emitted/created/produced to put on the show, but hey, at least a few million Westerners (give or take a few million, probably take) got to rock out, feel good about feeling good about doing nothing, and help raise awareness.

Now tell me, if I were to burn down a grocery store to raise awareness about over consumption or destructive farming techniques, what would the reaction be? I earnestly hope people would deem me a madman without any second thought, seeing as I created a big mess just to protest a big mess. And what if the big mess I was protesting wasn't even proven to be a big mess at all? What then?

If those who attended any of the Live Earth concerts set any standard, no one would care. They'd just be happy that I invited a few modern day pop stars to help make the mess. Private jet? No problem - she's raising awareness, don't cha know. In our age of enlightenment, raising awareness is practically a cause for secular sainthood. It doesn't matter that a person's lifestyle contradicts their message, just as long as they make sure they insert a few catch-phrases to their songs and smile to the media, they're totally above criticism.

Perhaps the best quote of all, which sums up the entire problem of Live Earth and the slacktivism of global warming came from a British punter named Jayme Fine, "People leaving their lights on at home when nobody's there is going to eat up electricity. If we all just remember to shut those off, it's OK for us to have an event like this."

Idiot.