Gwynfor Evans is dead

I've been so busy, I not only haven't been blogging, but I haven't even been following any news I don't have to. And I missed this.

I've had a special place in my heart for Wales ever since I fell in love with the language as a teenager. I've also always been impressed with guys like Saunders Lewis, who was part of a group that set fire to a government installation as a protest, then went straight to a constable before anybody had seen the fire and turned themselves in. By the time they were booked, they were sitting calmly in the police station discussing the finer points of a particular Welsh poetic form. Nobody was hurt, and they didn't try to make a run for it. Irish revolutionaries have historically made rebellion a brutal thinng (with some cause, to be sure), but the Welsh have mostly been gents about it. Velvet rebels.

Gwynfor Evans was the first Welsh Nationalist in Parliament. He has also the distinction of being one of the very few politicians that ever made Margaret Thatcher back down. I think hunger strikes are a stupid weapon as a general rule, but when Gwynfor did it, it not only worked, but he came out smelling like a rose and Magi-To-Gwell had to salvage face. Ballsy, indeed!

Apparently Gwynfor had been sick for a long time. It's not that many men who make it to 92 anyway, and he's had reason to hold out. When Gwynfor entered politics in the 30s, Wales was Britain's Appalachia: poor, hopeless, and trying to survive on memories and tourists. Gwynfor lived to see his beloved country with a parliament of its own (well, a mini-parliament), and serious rumblings of independence.

Cysga mewn hedd, Gwynfor, bach. Rwyt ti wedi ennill dy orffwys gan chwys. Mae dy wlad yn falch ohonot.

Cry "habemus," and let slip the dogs of news!

It's Ratzinger. I was hoping it wouldn't be, because the media will shred him.

Look at it this way. The mainstream media, which tend to disapprove of orthodox leadership in the Catholic Church, knew that the next pope would be a conservative. But if it turned out to be an African or a Latin American, they would have to soft-pedal the personal attacks, because it's not PC to malign a non-European.

Ratzinger, however, is tailor-made for the role of media's most-hated. He's German, and already the Times in England has a smearfest about his having been a Hitler Youth. He's currently (well, he was as of a few hours ago) the head of the Inquisition, which makes it easy to stir up Jewish-Christian trouble. He doesn't have a fraction of the personal charisma that John Paul the Great had, and I very much doubt he's got the diplomatic ability to build bridges within Christendom. And he's well-known in America, so there's not going to be a getting-to-know-you honeymoon period with the media. They'll shred him.

I know the Holy Spirit knows what He's doing better than I do, so I'll try to stop second-guessing Him now. Long live Pope Benedict XVI!

Habemus papam!

No word yet on who it is. I'm watching the news like a hawk.

Wonder why they call him "Big Mike?"

Sometimes words fail, even for a newspaperman. Seems this couple got caught skinnydipping. That's not a huge deal; I've skinnydipped myself, although I was a teenager the last time I did it, and there wasn't a girl in sight (alas and alack, for lack of a lass!).

But this guy was thoroughly snockered (blew a .134!), in the company of an unidentified woman, and his wife was out of town for a funeral!

Police allegedly detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from Stevens. Carriker asked him how much he had to drink and Stevens allegedly replied, “Not enough.

Dang skippy! If it was my (lovely and brilliant) wife, there wouldn't be enough hemlock for me to drink before she came to see me at the jailhouse to tell me she was dumping my sorry butt.

Hat tip to Jim Romanesko.

The race is on!

I thought I had missed my window of opportunity, but there was black smoke from the conclave today, so there's still a chance to post this (click to enlarge):


Let the voting begin... er... continue!

Speaking of the Bayly blog

David also brings up a good point here, when he says

Recent Roman Catholic comments on this blog (and on other blogs about this blog) remind me of the Amish attitude toward the English. The Amish love using English cars, power tools, phones, income. But they're not English and they don't want the English thinking they're Amish.

So too Rome benefits from Evangelicalism in countless ways. It's gaining powerful converts from it. It's being aided in the moral battles of our day by it. Its children are being protected by Protestant ministers who were willing to face arrest for the sake of Terri when no Roman Catholic clergyman was willing to do so. But in the end, it seems there's precious little give and a lot of take from Rome on this blog.

I think David may be right about this, and not just on their blog. Catholics, especially converts, are often so ready for a scurrilous attack on our church that we go about prickling for an argument. We need to remember that not all Protestants are Jack Chick, and a lot of them have good reasons for rejecting particular Catholic teachings. Whenever I start to feel too knowledgeable, I go read somebody like the Bayly Brothers or Tim Challies. I can disagree with them, and often I can even defend my reasons, but I can't dismiss these guys as ignorant or bigoted.

The other thing we forget is how much we owe Protestantism in modern times. I can't imagine what the Catholic Church would look like had Luther and Calvin not forced it into accountability, much less what our American culture would be like if we were the only church in it. So I'd like to take this opportunity to express some gratitude to the descendants of the Reformation.

1. I'm grateful to Protestants for the Bible. Yes, I know they got it from us, but how much attention does the average Catholic pay to Bible study? How much would it be if there were no Protestants around to challenge us? Because Protestant theology is so dependent on the Bible, they've raised Bible study to a level beyond that of most Catholic laity. In fact, because we're so often unversed (pardon the pun) in the scriptures, we feed the myth that Catholics are forbidden to read it for themselves.

2. On a more personal note, I'm grateful to the Protestants that taught me the Bible, as well as most of the Christian theology I still believe. My Sunday School teachers had no degrees in catechesis or theology. They were just ordinary Baptists who wanted to teach kids to love and serve the Lord. And they were successful in that. No matter how far I wandered away from God, I knew the way back thanks to them. The ones I'm thinking of are getting on in years now, and they'll probably never see this blog, but Eunice Bickel, Larry Sybouts, Marie Ritter and Darlene Pritchett, on the chance you ever see this, thank you. It took a while, but the lessons stuck. (I'd include my grandmother in that, but she's in heaven now, so she already knows.)

3. I appreciate Protestant enthusiasm. It's too easy for Catholics (unless they're in a charismatic parish) to get into a routine of droning their way through a Mass, showing up when they're told, and generally going through the motions of worship. Protestants don't have as many motions to go through, for one thing, and for another, they don't believe in rote worship. While that can sometimes make for an overemphasis on emotion, more often it just means that they mean what they say, and sing, and pray. I wish we did as well at that.

4. This is one I don't hear much about, but I appreciate the Protestant approach to repentance. In case you're a Protestant reading this, Catholics recognize two kinds of contrition: perfect and imperfect. Imperfect contrition is when you're sorry for your sins because you fear God's punishment, either on earth or (in extreme cases) in Hell. (It's not as cynical as it sounds; sometimes it's all you can manage until God has a chance to work a change in your heart.) Perfect contrition is when you're genuinely sorry for your sins because you love God and don't want to disobey Him.

Protestants - at least the ones who believe in once-saved-always-saved - don't fear Hell. And I don't think they even believe very much in temporal punishment. So all their contrition is what we would call perfect. When they repent, it's because they love God. This, in turn, means that they often have a deeper relationship with the Author of all forgiveness.

5. Finally, here's a reason that doesn't get talked about much. I'm grateful to Protestantism for providing an alternative to Catholicism. There are a great many Catholics who, for an infinite variety of reasons, don't stay in the Church. Some of them have trouble believing without passion (see #3 above). Some have been hurt by somebody inn the Church. Some have been mistreated by clergy, or have ugly memories of Catholic school nuns with rulers. Some of them find Protestant doctrine more reasonable. And some just never find the connection to the Savior that the Catholic Church offers.

Protestant churches are filled with ex-Catholics. Some are angry, some are just closer to the Lord there. While I'd rather see all Christians in unity, I'm pretty sure it ain't a-gonna happen this side of Christ's return. Better people should be Protestant than alienated from Jesus. I'm grateful to Protestantism for being a haven for the people we have lost.

I hope my appreciation of our separated brethren can show through my arrogant, argumentative attitude toward theology. Catholics, particularly converts, tend to take kind of a condescending tone when we talk about Protestants. We treat all Protestants as though the only reason they're not Catholic is that they're ignorant, snake-handling, infinitive-splitting imbeciles, and try to catechize them when we should be conversing with them. We also, as I said, leap too quickly to the defensive; years of having to defend against Protestant calumnies have affected our reflexes. When Protestants acknowledge us as brethren, we need to remember it's not time to argue; it's time to love each other.

I'm back...

...well, sort of, anyway. The atmosphere here at the paper is still a bit chaotic, as old files have to be converted en masse to new ones in software that's not always compatible. And my workload tends to be a feast-or-famine thing, currently in a "feast" phase, so posting may be a bit more seldom than it's been.

However, David Bayly has thrown me a challenge, saying

...his is a relatively recent blog and he won't be able to sustain the writing he's been doing and remain married and employed at the same time. But it's been a fun ride up till now.

In the wake of the fraternal relations Papes and Prods had at Terri Schiavo's death, followed by the passing of Ioannus Paulus Magnus, the brethren Bayly are tackling a lot of Catholic-Protestant issues. I really appreciate the way they have handled it on their blog: There's no watering down of their Reformed beliefs, but they're looking at the question of how much we can agree on, and what we can agree to disagree on.

Really, the areas of dispute have been flagellated like an Opus-Dei novice on speed, but those areas don't prevent us from agreeing on other things. Those don't get discussed as much, because armchair apologists like me would rather argue than cnot, but in the long run, I think they're much more important. We're going to have to share a heaven someday; we might as well get along where we can.

I just wanted to assure David that it's not over yet. Buckle up!

LIght posting

Just in case anybody's been reading this, I've been swamped the last couple of days, what with my whole office installing brand-new computers (complete with brand-new, mostly unfamiliar software) while still trying to keep up during a busy streak. The bottom line is that I can't blog much for a bit. I'm saving up stuff, though, so look for a burst of activity once the heat's off.

Incidentally, it looks like Blogger's been casting comments off into the ether somewhere. Karen, thanks for yours; I'll see if I can get it to show up.

Meanwhile, take a look at Patrick O'Hannigan's The Paragraph Farmer. Good stuff there!

This is why I love Orson Scott Card

Most people (at least those who enjoy science fiction) know Card as an insightful novelist who has that rare understanding of how crucial God is to the human psyche. Well, he's also an insightful columnist who has that rare, etc. He's always been one of my favorite writers, and I find that although we're miles apart doctrinally, I always come away from his books knowing my own faith a little better. I was looking forward to what he would have to say about the passing of John Paul the Great, and I wasn't disappointed.

John Paul II showed the way toward a real ecumenism. He did not try to pretend that Christianity was not divided into different streams of authority and different doctrines. Instead, he spoke with the authority he had, as if he spoke for all Christians, and then let Christians sort themselves out into the groups that agreed with, believed in, and lived by the bold statements he made; and those that didn't.

What I saw was that many a Protestant came closer to being in John Paul II's flock than many a Catholic who clearly stood outside it. The Christian world re-sorted itself into those who adhered to a faith centered in a divine resurrected Christ and a literal New Testament, and those who thought that "modern thought" should trump the core doctrines of Christianity.

The real division in Christianity today -- and in other religions too, I might add -- is between the churches and congregations and individuals who are accommodating themselves to the new secularity, abandoning doctrines and commandments in the process, and those that believe that God still requires us to live by faith and by obedience to his commandments, now as much as ever.

What makes this more touching is that Card is a Mormon, whose church isn't even considered a Christian sect by most others who use the name. Like the Samaritan woman at the well, Card knows holiness better than many who claim for themselves a place in the fold. It's one of my few regrets about John Paul II that he never met with the LDS Prophet in the same way that he did with other religious leaders.

Read the whole thing here. It's well worth the time.

More dirty-eared inbreds

These people throw around "Jewish" like it's a bad thing. If John Paul the Great had Jewish ancestry (and knew about it), I expect he'd have been proud. Although it might have hampered his ecclesiastical career in Poland; I gather Jews weren't very popular there before or after the war. Still, I doubt he would have let career concerns stand in the way of honesty and integrity, though. If he were all that concerned about the powers that be, he wouldn't have backed so many underdogs.

Hat tip to Mark Shea.

This is disgraceful

Not surprising, mind you, just disgraceful. When are our civil masters going to learn that a penis doesn't necessarily equal deep pockets and bad parenting skills?

I've been on the losing end of a custody battle, and I've seen worse happen to other men. Unless you can afford much better lawyers than the ex, you're going to lose based on the presence of a Y chromosome. And merely asking a court for justice will probably cripple you financially. A vindictive woman with a judge on her side has no more restraint than a shark in blood-soaked waters.

Besides the religious and moral reasons, this is an eminently practical reason to keep the ol' zipper closed until you're permanently married. You have to ask yourself: "Would I trust this woman with uncontrolled access to my bank account?" Because if she gets pregnant, you might as well have handed it to her.

Why music matters

God bless Liz Goss for saying this. One of the big disappointments that converts to Catholicism deal with is finding out that we missed the Middle Ages, and Gregorian Chant has been replaced by tuneless exhortations to social justice with no semantic or theological content whatsoever.

Here's your chance...

... to wear a tall hat, be surrounded by Swiss guards in Renaissance costumes, and be called the AntiChrist by inbred subliterates with dirty ears.

The Papacy: It's not just a job, it's an adventure.

Snakes. Why does it have to be snakes?

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. " Genesis iii, 15.

Of course, the Lord didn't say anything about incinerating them. But whatever works, I guess.

Making money the old-fashioned way

Seems some kids in Seattle have gotten suspended for passing counterfeit money in the school cafeteria. When I was a kid, there were all kinds of opportunities to make money: paper routes, selling greeting cards through ads in comic books, things like that. I even sold GRIT for a few years (anybody remember that newspaper?). We have to give the little criminals credit at least for ingenuity, especially since the cafeteria took the money and only noticed the counterfeit later. These kids'll be something when they grow up.

On the other end of the intellectual scale, a Best Buy store called in the Secret Service when a customer used $2 bills to pay for a car stereo. Legitimate bills. Of course they're legitimate! Who in his right mind thinks a counterfeiter would waste his time making fake twos? Law of diminishing returns, and all that.

Memo to the manager at the Best Buy: Hire sixth-graders. They know good cash from bad better than you do.

Baptizing Dead Jews

Apparently, the LDS Church hasn't been keeping its promise to stop baptizing Holocaust victims by proxy. A meeting is scheduled between leaders in the American Jewish community and unspecified LDS leaders.

I don't know who's in charge of proxy baptisms; whether the decision to baptize a particular person or not is made by the local ward or at the apostolic level. But a decade ago, the church promised Jewish leaders it would stop including practicing Jews in the ordinance.

It strikes me as purely symbolic, not only because I'm not a Mormon and don't believe in proxy baptism, but because according to the doctrine, it's still the choice of the baptizee in the next life whether or not to accept the baptism. No dead Jew is being baptized against his will. So the Jewish leaders in question are getting exercised about having an option they don't believe is possible offered to people they've never met and who can't give their own opinion, in an afterlife most Jews don't believe in anyway.

It'd be an interesting meeting to sit in on, since each side regards the other as "Gentiles."

New toy

Just figured out how to add Haloscan. This whole blogging thing is cool! It's like being in a toy store during an after-Christmas sale.

Update: Looks like installing Haloscan erased all the comments that were there before. Sorry 'bout that.

Responding to a reader

Wahoo! Only three days, and somebody's commenting!

Bethany was kind enough to comment on yesterday's post about Mary. I started to answer her in the comment box, but I got so long-winded I figured I'd better just post it here. She brings up some good points about Catholic and Orthodox Christians' attitude toward Mary, and I'd like to respond to them. I won't quote everything she said; you can see it in the comments below.

It's true that the Bible doesn't mention Mary as a queen. Really, it doesn't talk about Mary much at all, since it's mostly concerned with Jesus. He is the heart of the Gospel.

However, I don't think it follows that because Mary is not the equal of her Son, then she is necessarily the equal of us. She was the closest person on earth to Jesus. She bore Him in her body, she nursed Him at her breast, she raised Him from infancy. We don't know how long Joseph lived, but he's not mentioned in the Gospels after Jesus' twelfth year, so I think it's safe to suppose that she was His sole parent for a good deal of His youth.

She also was the sole source of His genes. God was the origin of His divine nature, but Mary was the stuff God used to make Jesus' humanity. I know it boggles the mind (and I'm not theologian enough to unravel this), but Mary had the task, unique in history, of teaching God as a child to be human. Mary loved Him more than anyone else ever has, and surely she deserves extra respect for that. If (to oversimplify a bit) the strength of our Christianity is measured in how much we love Jesus, then Mary was the greatest Christian of us all.

There's kind of a subconscious assumption, especially in our Western, democratic culture, that anybody who is not God is "no better than the rest of us" and we must not treat anybody differently from anybody else. Hence, from the outside, it appears that Catholics (and all Christians other than Protestants, for that matter) are worshipping Mary as though she were God, if we give her any extra reverence. That's not the case. No matter how much reverence and love we give to Mary, we always give God more. She never died for our sins. It is not her body and blood that is given to us at the Eucharist. All blessings come from Him, even if she prays for them for us. If a Christian honors her above Him, then he is indeed in error. But there's no error in honoring her above the rest of us.

As for intercession, the passages you mentioned say that Jesus and the Spirit are interceding for us. They do not say that nobody else does or can. However, the Cloud of Witnesses mentioned in Hebrews, and the elders in Revelation who present the prayers of the faithful before the throne, are (it seems to us, anyway) clear references to the prayers of the saints in heaven on our behalf. If nobody but Jesus may pray for us, then we sin in praying for each other on earth. We know this is not true, of course; rather, we are commanded to pray for each other. How does it follow that our brothers and sisters in heaven are forbidden to pray for us, where we sinners are commanded to do so? Should not the perfected person pray even more than the sinful one? If we have prayer warriors on earth, who understand God's will only through a glass darkly, are the saved in heaven, who see Him clearly, less able to be prayer warriors? In short, will they be disenfranchised (to misuse the word) for being no longer sinful?

Finally, in practical terms, I can tell you that Mary and the other saints have certainly not hindered me from learning about God. On the contrary, my walk with Him is much closer since I began to see the Church, not stuck in a moment of time, but reaching back to the Apostles in an unbroken line. God's greatness is made more visible, not less, in the lives of those who have loved and served Him on earth.

You can tell...

...that John Paul II was exceptional, not by the words of his friends, but of his adversaries. Below I mentioned Ian Paisley's comments, which, although hardly laudatory, at least didn't sound like he was foaming at the mouth. Now comes Fidel Castro, who went to the length of attending Mass at the cathedral in Havana. Apparently, Castro hasn't been to the cathedral in 46 years, and only been to Mass at all three times since that time.

"Enemy" may not be the right word, as Castro referred to the Pontiff as an "unforgettable friend," but I doubt the Bearded One had a lot of affection for John Paul, given that Cuba is still officially atheist, and Castro himself has been under excommunication since the early 60s. The pope did come to Castro's defense over the US embargo, which may be the source of his gratitude.

In any case, it's gratifying to see people like Castro and Paisley being... well... nice about the pope's death. Neither one of them is what you'd call young, and this may be the last chance either of them gets to gloat over a dead pope. Yet they both passed up the opportunity. Classy, at least for them.

There's no word yet from Jack Chick, who's also getting on in years. If anyone hears about his reactions, please let me know.

No! A thousand times, no!

May the merciful God protect us from this. (Registration is required, so go to Bugmenot if you need a login.)

Hat tip to Fr. Sibley.