Mass, the Bible, and Father McGuire

WHAT CATHOLICS HEAR AT MASS . . . Just returned from SSPX territory (Society of Saint Pius X), where mass is Tridentine and the calendar too.  So we had old-style 13th Sunday after Pentecost readings, which meant we heard nothing from the OT, so that I neither heard nor read Isaiah 66 predicting proclamation “to the distant coastlands” of Yahweh’s glory by means of horses, mules, and dromedaries.

Neither did I catch Hebrews 12 with its encouragement to accept trials in life as acts of discipline by a loving father, namely Yahweh, known as God to most of us.  Nor Luke 13 with the narrow-gate warning by Jesus: “Many are called, but few are chosen” in the old translation, and with “Depart from me, ye cursed” somewhat sanitized to read “Depart from me, all ye evildoers.”  The meaning is the same pastorally speaking, but the punch is about half-strength.

However, I did hear Father Michael sermonizing on the importance of frequent confession, even for those who never have other than venial sins to confess.  It’s a sacrament, for one thing, and gives grace.  Here is old-time religion: grace discussed as an aid to doing the right thing.  The word rarely comes up mainstream.  It’s part of discredited old-time theology that once reigned in seminary and pulpit.  Times do change, do they not?

I mention three new-style readings, repeated only every third year, because it’s where new-style beats old, in my opinion.  Why not multiply readings while we’re at it, at mass?  (Maybe to drive home moral points year after year, repetition being the mother of study.) 

What I do not miss, however, is the new-style handclasp or hug of peace, which has degenerated from restrained symbolic action to a festival of meeting and greeting that pokes a hole neatly into any aura of reverence one may have ginned up for devotion’s sake if not God’s.

POETRY, PLEASE . . . . What I did hear at the SPPX mass was Galatians 3, Paul talking about The Law and where it fits into the scheme of salvation, and Luke 17, about Jesus and the ten lepers whom he sent to “the priests” cured.  Of the ten, only one, a Samaritan, returned to Jesus to thank and praise him, at which point Jesus intoned one of his most quoted lines: “Where are the other nine?” further asking, “Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” and concluding, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.”

None of this was seized on by Father Michael, unfortunately, in his well-reasoned but repetitious and somewhat dry presentation.  But “Your faith has made you well” — or “thy faith has made thee whole” — is a line that remains with the listener.  It’s something to conjure with in an off moment, when things look especially bad. 

This is a weakness with the SPPX preachers, whom I appreciate for their practicality in matters spiritual.  They need a little poetry in their souls.  We all do.

DAILY OBSERVER . . . My sole column so far for the weeks-old online Chicago Daily Observer, is “Latin mass, anyone? What’s in store for Chicago?”.

Look for #2 soon — I think, though I haven’t heard boo from the editor, Tom Roeser, since I sent it Thursday. It’s about Rev. Donald McGuire, the Jesuit convicted as a pederast last year in Wisconsin.

Since this column went off, the Wisconsin prosecutor has said he wants McGuire back for imprisonment.  McG has been living in Oak Lawn while his seven-year sentences are appealed.

Is there a doctor in the house? Yes!

What hath God wrought on the South Side of Chicago?  The St. Sabina web site refers to the pastor as

Rev. Dr. Michael Louis PflegerThe Faith Community of Saint Sabina [Italics, boldface added]

When did this happen?  Why weren’t we told?

Thing is, we were told.  It’s honorary, from North Park Theological Seminary, since May.  Career experience.

Funny representative

This from Opinion Journal’s Political Diary, which I again recommend at $3.95/mo., is precious.  This Alaska congressman, defending his “bridge to nowhere,” actually to an island with 50 inhabitants that will experience a boom with a bridge, much to the profit of a senator, governor, or congressman, I forget which, who has bought a large chunk of developable land on it:

Quote of the Day III

“My bridges, if you want to call them my bridges — the state’s bridges — will be built. It’s just a matter of when… But it’s a project that gained a lot of publicity because of Katrina and frankly, John McCain, and they started this ‘bridges to nowhere’… There’s never been a bridge built anywhere that didn’t go somewhere” — Alaska Rep. Don Young, in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, on the “bridge to nowhere” earmark controversy.

Bridges do require two separated pieces of dry land, he’s right about that.  As Nebraska’s U.S. Sen. Roman Hruska said some years back when named the dumbest senator, even dumb people deserve representation.

Getting with it at Sun-Times: they gone

Where have all the certain kind of columnists gone from Sun-Times, where you go if you want to get with something?  Tom Roeser is keeping track.  He says Betsy Hart is gone, but she’s listed among the columnists on the site.  But again, click on her and find — nothing, a blank white space where her columns would be listed.  Hmm.

Mark Steyn is gone, but it was his idea, says new ed. page editor and former books editor Cheryl Reed if you ask her.  Such a major contributor on Sundays, mightily featured, national in scope, a veritable heavyweight.  He gone, as the Sox announcer says when another team strikes out, going with the black patois.

Mary Laney is gone, “apparently,” not having appeared since July 9 — with a much needed perspective, “Blame Islamofascists’ theology, not Western policies” — and also sporting lots of white space where previous columns should be.

Meanwhile, consider Carol Marin today in “Big Labor struts its stuff at debate,” in which she notes that presidential debates have become show places for sponsors’ clout.  Quite a good column.

When you’re 24, you do such things . . .

. . . but NY Times would rather not discuss it.  Times Watch blogger notes how NYT blogger Kate Phillips profiled Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.  (So did Chi Trib.)  But the Times Watch man adds something that demonstrates a feverish response to the war that Markos later regretted:

Too bad Phillips didn’t file a more complete profile of Moulitsas – she didn’t mention his notorious April 2004 posting (which he later deleted) calling four private military contractors killed and mutilated in Fallujah, Iraq “mercenaries” for whom he felt no sympathy: “Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”

 

Rudy can handle those bozos

A blogger caught the 7 a.m. (!) Iowa Repub debate and gave high marks to Rudy G., noting his being the only candidate to demonstrate opposition, even contempt for lib positions.  PowerLine’s John comments:

I think the point about viewing the Democrats’ positions as distasteful is an astute one. Giuliani on the stump can be devastating: I’ll never forget the impression he made on me at the Republican convention in 2004. He is capable of eviscerating liberals and their positions in a way that the others, with the possible exception of McCain, don’t really aspire to. When people fret about whether Rudy can fire up the Republican faithful, I think they are overlooking his ability to articulate the scorn for liberalism that most conservatives feel.

It’s yet another reason he’s my man for the first Italo-American president.  But is he Italian enough?

 

Punchy vs. Sleepy

Two ledes for house passage of lobby reform story, about which we report at this blog, you decide which tells more and gets to the heart of the matter pronto.

One:

The House scrambled yesterday to pass a watered-down bill that purported to end lobbying and earmark abuses, but in the end will not do nearly enough to change the culture of Capitol Hill back-scratching that helps fuel the growth of government and encourages corruption. One sign of the bill’s weakness was that it passed on an overwhelming vote of 411 to 8. As one wag put it, “Anything that passes by that margin is either in favor of the equivalent of motherhood or toothless.”

T’other:

WASHINGTON – Fighting Republican charges they have done little this year, Democrats in Congress began a rush Tuesday to pass major bills before the fast-approaching August recess, starting with House approval of a lobbying reform bill on a 411-8 vote.

If you’re guessing, yes, this second one is on page one of Chi Trib.  (The first is in the subscription-only — $4/mo. — Opinion Journal’s Political Diary.)

That Republican lawyer again

The publisher’s wife can’t let that story go, about the Republican who became a Dem because of GW.  Today she surrenders almost her whole column to the fellow.

He speaks of “this blog,” whose funding he intends to investigate.  Egad, is that me?

But not before he checks out his $2,000 contribution, which he thinks was from his two partners and him and so was only $667.67 but hasn’t had time yet. 

Did Hunter wait until he did check it before surrendering her space to him today?  It appears she did not.

Did she ask him what blog he’s talking about?  Apparently not.

What a team they make.  Of course, the issue is her professionalism and reliability, rather than touchy Republicans.

Later: Boy, am I the uninformed egotist.  Bloggers have been all over this lady.  See here, where Google has page one of 40–plus pages where she is mentioned.

Burning questions

1. Why do violent-crime stories always emphasize the victim and not the culprit?  They usually know the victim right off, but the culprit only later, if ever.  But the culprit is usually more interesting.  We want to know who the s.o.b. is, where he lives, what else he’s done.  We are often told this, but rarely are regaled with detailed accounts such as we commonly read about victims.

2. What’s to keep a cranky person more or less in line? 

A head-trip mass on Sunday with bad music and holy reverie interrupted by vaious handshaking and eye contact with priest at makeshift altar who mimics Johnny Carson (or Leno or Letterman) with wireless mike on neck for sermon and intersperses rubrics with his own personalized comments? 

Or a tried and true Catholic traditional mass with bells, book, candle and quietude normally associated with dwelling on and trembling and/or delighting in God’s presence?

3. What’s this separate but equal approach in the Sun-Times, with Mitchell column for blacks and Cepeda for Spanish-ethnic?  Word is, do not look for nuances in either place.

Patience is not always a virtue . . .

For the past few days, since a news story of mine was published on Monday, I have been bombarded with dozens of daily e-mails from Republicans calling me a liar, demanding I be fired, and insisting on a retraction.

Says the publisher’s wife Jennifer about her incredible boo-boo including willingness to believe a trial lawyer in matters political.

Actually, the dozens of e-mails sound rather reasonable to me.  As Cicero said to Catline the conspirator, how long, how long will you abuse our patience, O Sun-Times publisher and wife.  How long?

She’s defensive to beat all, blaming her editor, who “took a small part of [her] story and made it into a headline.” 

She means the editor (correctly) rewrote her lede, she having buried it?  Here’s what the story had:

After watching the top five Democratic candidates for president speak before a trial lawyers’ group Sunday, attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

But that’s what editors do, she explains:

Reporters don’t write headlines, editors do. And they want to write something catchy so readers will read the darned story.

But that’s your story they’re trying to scare up readers for, lady. 

She also explains how readers should have read the story:

The story was not about the GOP lawyer; it was about the speeches five Democratic presidential candidates gave to a convention of trial lawyers.  . . . .  As reporters usually do, I asked two attendees after the session what they thought about the speeches.

See?  And one of those guys misled her.  Nasty fellow.  How was she to know?

Was she to look it up?  Not to mention the city desk or whatever it’s called now, where eye-shaded, hard-hearted editors have been known to take an adversary position to what comes across their screen.  For the publisher’s wife?  Are you kidding?