The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin. On the face of it, this seems rather quaint and, like Church teachings, a relic of the past emblematic of an irrelevant and outmoded institution. Indeed, as many are wont to believe, Latin is a dead language befitting a dead Church.

I routinely attend the novus ordo Solemn Latin Mass at my parish. Dead or alive, the Latin adds to the beauty and art of the sacred rite and I love it so much that I have committed to memory the Latin liturgical formulas, the major Catholic prayers, Vulgate scripture and a few motets. I also take a Latin class every Saturday morning. But aside from this bizarre personal proclivity, why is Latin important?

Why is any language important? Language is not only relevant to the manner in which thought is expressed but also how thoughts are shaped in our minds. Even today as progressives try to eliminate the use of the feminine and masculine pronouns of our language to blur gender lines, language is used to shape society. Some words are even being outlawed. Language can add to the beauty of a culture or take away from it. Language can be used to elegantly express a concept or create a blind spot as we often hear of a word in one language that has no direct translation in our own.

Sociologically, language can unify and divide. Remember the Tower of Babel? The subsequent division in people was a side effect of the division of language. What about the reverse—Pentecost? The Church was born upon the unions of disparate peoples hearing their native language. The preservation of language is a preservation of a people and their culture. There is a reason Denmark, Iceland, France, and Japan go to great lengths to preserve their language from the onslaught of foreign languages, particularly English. What about the reverse—the United States that refuses to even recognize an official language? Let’s not think upon that …

At any rate, Latin is not a dead language. We find it latent in English when we say “vulnerable” (L. wound) or “nautical” (L. sailor). We find it explicitly in words like “et cetera”, “alma mater”, and “pro bono”. Ever wonder why the abbreviation for pound is lb.? It is short for libra, the Latin word for scale. Latin is used in the fields of law, science, botany, taxonomy and medicine. It is incredibly instructive in terms of grammar and smart parents make their kids learn Latin. At least for many centuries, Latin was the language of the academy and many a great paper by the likes of Aquinas, Newton or Copernicus were written in Latin to communicate science to an educated world. Thomas More, an Englishman of the 16^th century, corresponded with Erasmus of Rotterdam, a Dutchman, using Latin though neither was familiar with the others native tongue. Thomas more could also vilify and insult Martin Luther in Latin, which he did quite generously.

As the language of the Church, Latin has been helpful in shaping theological concepts that English may have difficulty expressing. For example, in the Credo said at every Mass the phrase “ex Maria Virgine” is uttered in bowed reverence. This doesn’t just mean Jesus popped out of the Virgin Mary but that he “came out of” or “drew his humanity from” her. It is rich in significance and intended to be so.

More significantly, Latin is indicative of a catholic church—that is, one which is “universal”. Encyclicals and teachings must be conveyed to a world consisting of bishops in Asia as well as Sub-Saharan Africa. Not only does Latin unify the body of Christ geographically and culturally, but as a stable and ancient language, Latin also unifies the Church temporally. As G.K. Chesterton observed, tradition is the highest form of democracy since it enfranchises the dead. Latin allows us to consult with our past and build upon it, not discard it outright as our modern world does and much to its peril.

Sadly, the Church which once conducted the Roman Rite Mass in Latin exclusively has discounted this invaluable treasure which it alone possesses. An older gentleman in my Latin class remembers the time when one heard the Mass in Latin and followed along in the Roman Missal with Latin on one page, the vernacular on the other—all beautifully illuminated. One could travel clear around the world and participate in the Mass more or less as one did in his hometown.

Things are changing. Since Benedict XVI (who is reputed to speak Latin extemporaneously), the use of Latin in the ancient Rite is experiencing a renaissance. Several parishes in Northern Virginia conduct the Tridentine Mass, a number of these very close to my home. The Roman Missal pre-Vatican is available on Kindle and after having read some of it, I can tell you how amazing the prayers and liturgies once were. It’s time to bring it back.

The following is a college mission statement. Let’s see if you can guess the institution it comes from:

The scheme, then, is first, an educational institution in its most comprehensive sense. Its definition of education is that it is the united symmetrical development and instruction of the religious, the intellectual and the physical qualities of the man. It recognizes the whole man, in all the departments of his being, as the object of its care. Its aim is not to instruct merely, not to impart knowledge merely, but to awaken, to develop, to train, and to discipline all the latent inborn powers and faculties of the man, that he may command them for the high and noble uses of which they may be capable or for which they were designed… a home for the virtuous, where morality, industry and a thirst for knowledge shall unite for the advancement of the student and the prosperity of the institution.

Hard to believe that this was from my alma mater, the University of Maryland back in 1862 when it was called the Maryland Agricultural College. Let’s update the statement to fit its current mission 2016:

The scheme, then, is first, an educational environment in its most subjective sense. Its definition of education is that it is the indoctrination and inculcation of iconoclasm, over-sensitivity and the sexual preference of the evolved person. It recognizes one’s authentic self, in all the departments of her being, as the object of its care. Its aim is not to instruct at all, not to impart knowledge at all, but to deaden, to destroy, to ruin, and to eradicate all the socially constructed morals and narratives of human tradition, that she may shed them for the unequal and enslaving uses for which they were designed… a home for the empowered, where relative moralism, solipsism and a disdain for everything sacred shall unite for the individual rights and entitlement of the student and the overpriced bureaucratization of the institution.

Yep, sounds about right.

Social, political, academic and media establishments frequently ridicule and malign the deniers of evolution when just about everything those same establishments promote is in direct conflict with the tenets of the theory.

First, according to the prophets of modernity and pop scientists like Bill Nye, evolution is a scientifically settled fact and anyone that denies it is a superstitious, small-minded idiot unworthy of air, a job, or public office.  In full disclosure, I used to routinely deny the science of evolution mostly because every book I read on the topic (Leakey, Asimov, Coyne and others) usually had an ax to grind against theism, faith and Christianity up front. It was not until I read Collins’ Language of God that I could let my guard down long enough to understand why Christians, of all people, should be on the forefront of scientific knowledge as they were in all previous ages. I soon accepted the science of evolution while still refuting the specious philosophy that usually accompanies it.

Indeed, evolution goes far to answer the questions of biology, atavism, morphology, and vestigiality. But nothing in science is ever, ever settled. That’s what makes it science—ideas constantly challenged by the scientific community and evolution should be no exception. Consider the following present and past topics that constituted or challenged so-called “settled science”: geo-centrism, aether, time dilation, static universe, contracting universe, dark matter, multiverse, Higgs boson, the rationality of numbers, the quintic, quantum mechanics, and so forth. Nothing in science is settled and to quell dissent is to quell scientific inquiry.

But supposing that the theory of evolution is a firm and settled fact, who really denies it in the present age?  Is it the fundamentalist clinging to his guns, religion and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis? Consider these modern lines of thought that course against the scientific grain of evolution:

• Men and women are the same and society should blur the lines delineating the sexes.
  • Evolution provided gender diversity and the unique roles of the male and the female to vary and propagate life. Men are physically stronger, women are nurturing. Men do stupid and dangerous things; women think it through.
• Pregnancy is a pathology.
  • Pregnancy and lactation are the normal and natural state of mature women. To thwart pregnancy by contraception and abortion is to deny nature and, by extension, evolution. Without pregnancy and offspring, evolution is stalled.
• There are no differences between human races.
  • The full title of Charles Darwin’s seminal work is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The topic of varieties and race, including humans, was one of the major points.
• It is wrong for a large and powerful country to overtake a weaker one.
  • In the evolutionary struggle for limited resources, to have one nation, race, tribe take over, subject, or destroy another would be the natural consequence of the fittest surviving.
• Denying someone their rights is immoral.
  • Where do rights and morality come from? According to evolution, the only rights and morality is the expression of the selfish gene. Coercion and the removal of competition is an extrapolation of evolution, so who denies what and why is it wrong?
• Homosexuality is normal
  • Human heterosexuality is the substrate of human evolution. To breed is to contribute to the evolutionary process and to breed a lot is tantamount to the fittest surviving. Homosexuality lacks fecundity, is not productive, and doomed on the science of evolution despite what Jeff Goldblum says in movies.
• Diversity is favored
  • Evolution does not favor diversity; evolution favors the fittest: mint, horseradish, English Ivy (and, quite frankly, the English themselves), kudzu, the American chestnut, the cane toad, and hundreds of other extinct or invasive species have demonstrated that diversity it not the end game. The panda should be extinct, naturally, but we take great strides at great cost to preserve the species, unnaturally. Together we can stop evolution.
• Evolution explains the origins of life.
  • Evolution explains the diversity of life. The self-replicating molecule is the locomotive of evolution and its origins are not quite “settled science”.

The list of policies and ideologies that thwart nature and natural law seems to grow on a daily basis. So who really denies evolution? In some measure, don’t we all?

As an engineer, I look for solutions to problems, and the problem meriting my special attention is: what bathroom should one use? But rather than focus on the bathroom that men, women or transgender should select, I will focus on the real problem: the inadequacy of our tiled facilities.

The problem with the American public restroom is, well, publicity. Our traditional bathroom stall is protected by immodestly thin partitions with 1-2 feet of drafty clearance below, several head-popping feet above, a yawning gap in the door jamb, and little decorum. And with the urinal types of porcelain conveniences there is sometimes, we hope, a small “partition” no better than those used in documents to separate sections:

And nothing more impedes the easy flow of nature than strangers at each elbow trying to concentrate. No, No, NO! I want utter quiet, peace, isolation and PRIVACY conducive to relaxation and focus.

Personally, I like the European WC (watering closet) concept: a veritable built-in ROOM with thick walls that seal to the floor and flush to the ceiling; a heavy door with a contraption that, when turned, flips a red WARNING sign to the outside suggesting to the passerby that the toilet is fully, FULLY, occupied and made of material conducive to sound proofing. No need to jostle the door knob and alarm the occupant. No need to peek under the door to scrutinize shoes and a gather of clothing around some bare legs to determine in-use status. No need to stifle the natural noises of nature. In this design, the public restroom amounts to a public set of sinks and hand dryers. Brilliant.

Or how about the airplane version where the identity of the restroom takes on the identity of the occupant. Toilet, sink and mirror all in one unit. Replace every bathroom stall with one of these. Brilliant.

Now if the expense of modifying the bathrooms accordingly is too much for Target (but probably less expensive than all the money they are going to lose from a boycott), we can employ a simple algorithm:

• Is your business No. 01?
  • Whether or not you identify as a woman or a man, do you have a penis, naturally or by surgery?
    • • Use the men’s room. It has urinals.
    • • Use the ladies’ room. It does not have urinals, and you will need to be seated.
    • Is your business No. 02?
      • Please use the ladies’ room. I don’t want you fouling up the air in my bathroom.

So, if someone like Chaz Bono wants to use the men’s room—let him/her. Enhancement and hormones are enough of a price paid to join the exclusive club of males. But if someone like Bruce Jenner wants to use the ladies room, NO. He’s a man thinking he wants to be a woman with the fast option of changing back. In any case, regarding No. 02—always, always, always, the ladies room because I don’t want to smell your foul emanations.

Simple. Elegant. Agreeable. Problem solved.

Quite frankly the use of the bathroom as indiscrete as it is in America is still an in-and-out business. I don’t spend a lot of time socializing or looking at what the other occupants look like or identify as. Just get’ er (or get ‘im) done.

What bothers me about the transgender issue is not the bathroom; it’s the locker room. Personally, I don’t want to see anything that looks like an anatomical woman walking around naked in the men’s locker room. It’s unsettling. In fact, I don’t like to see anything that looks like an anatomical man walking around naked in the men’s locker room. It’s also unsettling. Mr. and Ms. Nudity need to cover up and stop parading around exhibiting their open-mindedness. And for eternity’s sake don’t talk to me. I need space to heal after accidently glimpsing your ugly, ugly, ass.

The unisex locker room it a natural extension of my bathroom solution—give everyone their small personal what-I-identify as locker room. If only it could be made cost-effective.  But I suspect everyone is going to cancel their gym membership or start to home school. The market may decide this one.

It is well accepted by Christians that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. This is crucial for providing Jesus Christ a dual nature of humanity and divinity. What gets people hung up is Mary’s perpetual virginity—that she remained a virgin and her marriage to Joseph was never consummated sexually. Furthermore, the lack of consummation also seems to course against Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality and children. So what’s up with that? Were they married or weren’t they? This essay attempts to shed light on the nature of the marriage within the holy family from a Catholic perspective.

First, we must understand that we are dealing with concepts–celibacy / chastity—that existed centuries before the Sexual Revolution and Hollywood imbued everyone with the idea that sex is the be-all and end-all. We don’t ask how Jesus, Paul or the Essene Jews were celibate or how Pagan cultures, particularly Greek, would commit to a celibate life.  Vows of virginity/celibacy, although not common, were not unheard of in the ancient world and even in our modern day there are illustrations of this in the Catholic priesthood, religious orders, and laity (Opus Dei).

Second, we are also dealing with a very unique and grace filled situation—the Holy Family. As with many miracles, natural laws may not apply. Some allowance is in order here but it still must harmonize with Catholic theology.

Third we must also understand that any teaching will be accepted as a matter of faith. Nothing can be scientifically proven to modern satisfaction and even if it could many would go on believing what they want. As you know the Catholic Church derives its teaching from thousands of years of preserving the Deposit of Faith, Sacred Tradition, the Church Fathers, centuries of theologians and scholars, the Magisterium, bishops, popes as well as an understanding of Sacred Scripture which they compiled—it’s not just one guy with a novel thought in his head. Now what the Church teaches on matters may not vividly and overtly reflect in a translation of the Bible but it should at least comport with scripture and be plausible. And yet—much can be taken away from the Bible that simply is not there and the reason we have so many fractures in Protestantism.

Church teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary has been challenged throughout the centuries mostly based on the usual verses of scripture cited by Protestants—this is not new. In fact, a very early case of this was the claims of Helvidius in the 4th century who was refuted by St. Jerome in a pamphlet entitled The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. For those who do not know St. Jerome, he was arguably the greatest Bible Scholar of all time, have translated all the scriptures into Vulgate Latin—a translation that was in use in the Catholic Church until the 20^th century. St. Jerome is one of the eminent Doctors of the Church and lived at a time when the Greek of the New Testament was still spoken. He is also the author of one of the most popular prayers of all times, the Gloria Patri, said at the end of each decade when praying the Rosary and sung after each Psalm in the Traditional Mass and Sacred music. To put it mildly, St. Jerome is no slouch.

And to say that St. Jerome went on the offensive toward Helvidius on this heresy is not overstating it, basically calling his opponent an idiot in ways only a saint could conjure, and throwing down the gauntlet: “Let [Helvidius] be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.”

One would think, given St. Jerome’s credentials in language and sacred scripture, the matter would be settled but, alas, the topic rears its head again and again. It may surprise one to know that the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) believed and supported the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity too. It’s not until Bible fundamentalist who rely exclusively on the overt and literal text of the scripture got a strangle hold that the issue resurfaces in modern times. But the Bible was never to be read and understood in such a vacuum. That’s why we have the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church to shepherd Christians toward a common understanding of truth, faith, and morals.

I dare say that all objections brought about by Bible Christians today were refuted by St. Jerome in his pamphlet which can be read here. I will draw from this and sources such as Hahn’s Hail Holy Queen and other apologetic writings.

To understand the nature of Joseph’s marriage to Mary, it is important to know the importance of Mary’s perpetual Virginity. Why does it matter? In some ways we can push it further: why does it even matter that Joseph not touch Mary until she delivers her first born? If they are married and consummating the marriage is warranted, why wait until after the nativity? At least from the text we know he waited for some unspecified reason but why does that reason become null and void after Christ’s birth and only valid before? Or is the reason valid ongoing? What is it that we are trying to preserve by waiting at all since scripture indicates Jesus was conceived of the holy spirit and that’s all we really need to go on.

Whenever Mary’s name is invoked it is always with the word Virgin. She is known as the most Blessed Virgin so much so that whenever one talks about The Virgin, we are pretty sure it’s about Mary. The title Virgin must accompany her name so that there is no ambiguity about who we are talking about—but also, no ambiguity about the dual nature of her human offspring, Jesus Christ. Her status as virgin isn’t just a description of her state, but a description of what all Christians believe in.  And, so, conceptually, she should be ever-virgin if Jesus is to remain ever-Divine.

Aside: Ever more so than Protestants, Catholics hold to the idea that physical things can be consecrated and contain the spiritual property of holiness: water, relics, rosaries, church buildings, a room, chalices, patens, clothing, bread, wine, tabernacles, and so forth. Converts are often startle by this as I was when, after I purchased an olive wood cross at a Church sponsored charity, Fr. Drummond wanted to know if I wanted him to bless it for me. Though this sort of thing might be standard for the average Catholic, it had never occurred to me; I was delighted and slightly weirded out. And yet, the Bible is saturated with objects and people and things that are set apart as holy items—objects given deference and imbued with a spiritual property. It is curious that Satanists use the Eucharist in their profane rites and not just some bread and some wine they purchased at Rite-Aid. It is because the consecrated host is different from the accidents of bread and wine – at least they believe it so.

Because she was the God-bearer, the theotokos, the conduit through which God entered the world as a man, Mary was such a sacred vessel and was not to be repurposed for any ordinary life no matter how honorable that ordinary life may be. Prefiguring her in the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant[1], was an incredibly sacred object, so much so that those who inadvertently touched it met with a quick end. Consider Uzzah, the guy who stuck out his hand to stabilize the Ark on its way back to Jerusalem and was struck down by God right then and there (2 Samuel 6:6-7). If the ground that Jesus walked on was holy, if the robe that he wore was holy, imagine the womb that held him for nine months. As good of a man as Joseph was, he was probably not going to consummate the marriage with Mary given the odds, his understanding of the sacred, and the story of poor Uzzah. Yes, there is nothing wrong with sexual relations in the confines of a wholesome marriage, but this is a different circumstance and Mary and Joseph were “set apart” for God’s special purposes, i.e., holy.

Along these lines, in the following passage, apologist Scott Hahn supports Mary’s Perpetual Virginity by appealing to our understanding of the sacred most explicitly in the Old Testament.

God gave her singular graces because of her unique role in history. He made her sinless from the moment of her conception. He called her to be “Ever-Virgin.” Why? Because she was to become the vessel of God’s presence in the world! Now, the vessels used in the temple service were made, by God’s command, of the purest, most precious metals; and they were reserved only for sacred use. You could not repurpose the temple’s golden altar as an end table. You could not take the chalice used for libations and fill it with a cold beer on a hot summer night. Apart from the temple service, even the finest wine would profane the sacred vessels. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with end tables or alcoholic beverages, but the temple vessels were sacred and for God’s use only. Mary’s body was that kind of vessel. Once blessed with God’s presence, she could not simply “retire” and resume an ordinary married life. What would be permissible and even honorable for others would be a profanation for the Mother of God. [Hahn, Scott (2014-05-27). Angels and Saints: A Biblical Guide to Friendship with God’s Holy Ones (Kindle Locations 1822-1831). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]

And one might add that it would seem rather rude (nay abusive) to simply borrow Mary’s womb and then, what, her 15 minutes of fame are over? Is that what one would expect from a loving, caring, holy God? God made some pretty big promises to Mary and, of course, He kept them.

In some traditions, specifically that derived from the non-canonical Protoevangelium of James, Mary is said to have taken a vow of chastity and consecrated to the Temple by her parents. This was the situation before Joseph, before the annunciation, and it may have been an agreement that Joseph, betrothed to Mary, was going to remain celibate as a result. As a mutual understanding from the get-go, it is no wonder that Mary asks Gabriel at the annunciation: “how can this come about…” I suppose Gabriel could have said, “Well, duh, you are betrothed to Joseph. First comes love, then comes marriage, the comes Jesus in the manger!” Had Mary taken a vow of chastity and this was understood by Joseph and the Angel, perhaps the question is not so remarkably naive. “How can this come about if I’ve taken a lifelong vow of chastity”? And if she was already on the marriage plan with Joseph, her question should not have been “How will this come about…?” but “When will this come about…?”

And so, with the understanding of the importance of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it dictates the kind of marriage she has with Joseph. Although the Bible suggests that Joseph consummated the marriage sexually, the key verse is misinterpreted as exhaustedly demonstrated by St. Jerome in his pamphlet. Basically the use of the word “until” does not imply anything to occur beyond that point in the original language.

What about Jesus’ brethren? Again, St. Jerome explains that the word for brethren means way more in the original language and culture than our English language reveals. I encourage one to read the pamphlet which is not as dry as one would expect and mildly entertaining.

In what sense were Mary and Joseph married then? In perhaps the most critical ways defined by the Church and many Christians in general:

• A commitment to each other in life
• Respect for each other’s welfare and persons
• Joint travail and suffering.
• The custody and raising of children or a child in the faith.

Consider that sexual intercourse is a small part of marriage and summarily abused in modern life anyway, it’s not important to put an emphasis on it in the Holy Family or any married life in general. Although it may consummate a marriage, it should not define it. It is sad that marriages in our society are defined purely by the physical and end promptly when people are sexually dissatisfied (often shaped by ideals promoted by pornography and the entertainment industry) since, quite probably, people age, get sick, get tired, get stressed, travel, deploy overseas, dysfunction, and other vicissitudes of life. Though sexual conduct may diminish or even cease in a marriage, it should not mean that the marriage is over—not at all.

Regarding the thought on the Mosaic Law and the possibility that Joseph died shortly after his introduction into the infancy narratives—an interesting theory but one I never heard of in the early Church Father writings. Furthermore, we know that Joseph was alive when Jesus was lost at the temple around the age of twelve so he was at least alive that long. It is generally accepted that Joseph is gone by the time Jesus starts his public ministry (not present at the Wedding of Cana, not present at the Crucifixion) but when that happens is not entirely certain. If he died shortly after, he would have been technically assumed to have offspring in Jesus at least as a public understanding—after all, his genealogy is listed in the Gospels.

On that note, Joseph also provides Mary cover in a society where single mothers were socially stigmatized if not condemned violently. It could have been that Mary stay single, give birth, as well as stay perpetually chaste. But then the role of a father would have been diminished, Mary would be unduly burdened and modern feminists would have a field day. In prototype, the Holy Family is a family modeling the Trinity with the roles of father, mother and child; lover, beloved and the fruit of that love; Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Finally, in the same way the role of Mary is greatly studied in the Catholic Church to the extent that the field is referred to as Mariology, Joseph’s role is also studied, an area known as Josephology. He is also given great honor and mentioned in the Mass during the Eucharistic Prayer after Mary, described as “her most chaste spouse”. He is also the patron saint of the Church overall and has feast days in his honor.

[1] The Ark contained Aaron’s staff (priesthood), Tablets (the Law), and Manna (The Bread of Life) as Mary contained Jesus who represented all three.

Mass Tourism III

(see Mass Tourism for an explanation of this series)

A few weekends back my wife and I were retreating at White Lotus near Standardsville, a very interesting AirBNB she discovered for a few nights’ getaway. The options of Roman Catholic churches in the Shenandoah Valley are few but there was one Shepherd of the Hill a few miles away in Quinque (L. Five) with a Sunday Mass at 8:30 AM. So I arose and left around 8 AM.

On the road there, I was hailed down by a late 20’s early 30’s African American male. Normally I’d not want to pick up hitchhikers but this is a hard one to avoid when one is going to Church; the parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind. I rolled down my window and asked what he needed—a ride toward Charlottesville. I told him I wasn’t going very far but he could come along for the one mile I had left. He hopped in, glued to a smartphone talking with a woman (I think it was his wife) using an earbud to listen so that I only heard his side of the conversation. He seemed lost and maybe a little disoriented. Although he did not seem soused I did smell an odor distinctly “Eau de all night bender”.

Before I blinked, the Church appeared and I rolled into the parking lot—not a lot of mileage for the man on his way to Charlottesville. I looked at the time, about 8:10, and another verse of Scripture from the Beatitudes—something about going the extra mile for a Roman soldier—came to mind. I said I would take him as far as I could go in 10 minutes toward Route 29, providing just enough time to return for Mass. So I got him to Route 29 at the Exxon, got gas for myself and made it to Mass with a minute to spare. And, yeah, I wasn’t murdered after all!

Now the fun part.

The Church was sort of the sparse architecture of a modern church a la IKEA with a skylight down the center aisle and a “rainbow” color arrangement of banners hanging down. My orthodoxy sensor is not exactly registering in the “safe zone” at this point but I ignored the reading.  There was no red lamp burning nor anything that looked like a tabernacle—not even one of an IKEA make and model. Looking around I saw a side room, probably the Eucharistic chapel where some churches like to cordon that sort of thing off—not a good policy in my opinion but no wonder either.

I sat on the right wing (no pun intended) toward the top to be as isolated as possible but it was no good. A middle age couple, the man hooked up to a portable ventilator, sat in front of me.

The first thing I noticed that I found discouraging was the total lack of kneelers—one of the few remaining distinctions of the Catholic Church. Now my orthodoxy meter is jittering unsteadily. The service started with a “turn and greet your neighbor” ice-breaker which caught me flat-footed. I gave “meaningful glances” to those around me feeling like the odd man out trying to shed his attitude. Things went more or less according to liturgy with no art to the conduct. The prayer of the faithful was supplemented by random callouts for prayers related to people in the community—not a bad thing but would never happen at St. Catherine’s.  No way.

Sure enough, during the Eucharistic prayer everyone stayed standing. No one knelt. I did not kneel either even though I thought we should, but I was a visitor. Besides, much of the popular response are left open to “local custom” and maybe this was one of those areas—mental note.

Before any ite missa est, announcements were made and so-and-so’s birthday was that day and… (please no, No, NO!)  “we all” sang Happy Birthday to “Bob”, “Hank” or whoever it was.

I sorted of bolted out of the Church through a side door following another guy who wanted to beat the social congestion too. I love going to Mass but I am not a fan of the modernized approach which aids in the destruction of the relevance of Catholicism in history and her cultural distinction. Still, I understand that out there the community is a little tighter, the distances longer and the Church is a bit of the town square for exchanges—so I’ll take it in stride.

Supporting the idea that only white, male, landowners should vote would outrage women, minorities and apartment renters. Disenfranchising people due to race, gender or anything (which oddly includes people that can’t even prove they are American citizens) would probably enrage many Americans, especially progressives. And yet—I am wagering that most people—particularly progressives–believe that certain adults should be disenfranchised.

When I hear people announce they will not live in America if (Bush, Obama, Trump, Clinton) gets elected they are basically saying:

• I agree with democratic principles but only as long as my candidate wins.
• Not every adult should be allowed to vote. Not everyone should be enfranchised.
• Only people with my race, gender, beliefs, ideology, should vote.

If you believe in full democracy, one should never threaten to live somewhere else when a bad candidate gets elected. Unless, of course, you think only white, male, landowners should be the only ones that vote in our elections. For whether it is white or black, male or female, owner or renter—if you disenfranchise someone aren’t you essentially saying the same thing?

Most Christians are familiar with the concept of sin which I basically define as mankind’s inclination to be his own authority and to do what is wrong by natural or divine revelation. The first sin was representative of this definition since Adam and Eve ate of the fruit in an act of disobedience so that they could have their eyes open, be like God, and discern good and evil for themselves.

Protestant traditions teach that sin is Boolean—we are sinners saved by grace or sinners not saved by grace and one merits heaven the other merits a place not-heaven. The corollary to “grace alone” salvation spawns the idea that sin after a salvation experience is inconsequential to our eternal destination. Holiness is optional and bequeaths a proportional reward in paradise. We don’t know what that reward is, but whatever it is we want it. And so holiness is something we may strive for anyway, perhaps out of gratitude—but then again, maybe not.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are two types of sin: venial sin and mortal sin both of which we need to avoid but the latter being worse than the former. From the CCC: “1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience. 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.” Indeed, we are sinners saved by grace, yes, but it does not stop there. We must continue to participate in our salvation by staying in grace. Venial sin can be purged simply by going to Mass. But mortal sin “necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy” and one must go to confession to be rid of it.

Analysis

First of all, there is a natural tendency to grade sin in terms of severity. If a preacher gets mad at his wife and says unkind things we may not be as outraged as if he cheated on his wife using a paid prostitute (as televangelist Jimmy Swaggart did, twice, in the 1980’s and was defrocked). Truth is, there are some sins greater than others in their effect on people, society, as well as one’s relationship with God. So, intrinsically, we think of sin in levels of severity so why should people be surprised by the Catholic teaching on mortal and venial sin?

Alas the Scripture says so much too. 1 John 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a deadly sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not deadly. There is sin which is deadly; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly.

By and large, the teaching on sin in the Catholic Church ties in better with the teaching on salvation and personal responsibility. Protestant teaching has us saved and then, quite possibly, live reprobate lives as usual. But this doesn’t seem to comport with our sense of holiness and a spirit born anew. In such case some Protestants go so far as to suggest that one must not have been saved initially—that their salvation was in question. But who is to say? How can we know?

On the other hand, Catholic teaching demands that we continue to leave our life of sin, that we comport with a life of holiness, otherwise, we DO lose our salvation. And that is a paradigm shift for another day: it is possible to lose one’s salvation.

This essay is not about Donald Trump but the environment we have created that makes Donald Trump possible. Donald Trump is the byproduct of American culture as much as politics. As it says in the Good Book: “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind” and it is debatable as to whether we are still sowing or reaping.  So how did we create the fertile soil on which grows this cult of personality and tyranny in the making?

• First, the current ruling establishment failed to build trust with their colleagues in order to get work done. All of us work with people we may not agree with or even like, but we develop a rapport and a trust so that the task at hand gets accomplished. The best analogy to this is war and soldiery. Be they Christian, Jew, Wiccan, atheist, gay or straight, soldiers learn to create trust when everyone’s life depends on it. If politicians realized that our country is in peril as if we were being shot at, this trust might be easier to cultivate. Instead they find time to vilify each other to the electorate and the media — a big no-no when building trust. Hence, no one trusts anyone and if we have to pick someone we can’t trust we’ll pick a man who’ll get things done. Enter Trump.
• At a minimum, those that govern could solve the problems that affect everyone universally: the complexity of the tax code, the huge national debt, the ruinous entitlement programs that are cliff bound or just simply passing a budget each year. Alas, year after year they fail to do anything and no one is called to the carpet and no one is fired—or “foyered” as Trump would say. The issue is deflected by blaming the other side and we believe them when it corresponds to our ideology and don’t believe them when it doesn’t. So we let them get away with not building trust with each other as long as they appear to build trust with their likeminded constituents. Trump, portrayed as an ass-kicker and man of action starts to look real appealing.
• Our culture has become one of shock value and spectacle. Reality shows, TMZ, Jerry Springer, Bruce Jenner, the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus, self-absorbed celebrities, sound bites, ubiquitous and viral video, the Bachelor, the Bachelorette, MTV and the misfortune of others for our amusement. Those of us old enough a time when taste and good culture might have been expected know better but we failed to pass that on to the next generation. Trump is the logical candidate when politicians routinely appear on SNL, late night talk shows and Comedy Channel dailies. Our next guest—please welcome—Donald Trump.
• The news media is supposed to inform and weigh with equal criticality the actions of our leaders. This is the freedom of the press. Instead, the media has become the vector of spectacle that has become the fabric of national discourse. They steer the news and opinion with constant inculcation of agenda and fact shaping. No one believes a word they say or print: Foxnews, MSNBC, Brian Williams—lying bastards all! Once upon a time, anything less than accurate and unbiased reporting of events was the death of a news outlet. These days we don’t get news but political entertainment that dramatically decreases the level of trust we need to move forward. When substance doesn’t matter, give us Donald Trump.
• We do not value humility and welcome hubris and ego as the gold standard in character. Just watch any cooking show. Chefs, athletes, rock stars, celebrities and the super human self-confident egos are given center stage. I find it difficult to believe Mother Theresa’s, Albert Schweitzer’s and Nelson Mandela’s are so scarce in our world that Al Gore and Barack Obama should win the Nobel Peace Prizes instead. And we wonder about Donald Trump? He’s just the overt manifestation of our value system. Face it, we worship celebrities, winners and rich people. Donald Trump is all three.
• The oath. What kind of political climate should we expect when husbands and wives break their vows to one another? So then, no one makes a commitment in their relationships whether it is to their spouse, to their children, to their aging parents or their constituency. Politicians seeking power swear an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution but who really believes them? What do they really know about the Constitution or Law, History, Economics and leadership? We are a nation of vow breakers, led by vow breakers. And we wonder why Donald Trump a business man with lots of money, lots of ambitious, no obligation, multiple wives (serial polygamy) and off the cuff remarks is seeking the office of the president? He’s dishonest, says one thing and does another—just like us.
• Weak values. What would one expect in our culture which doesn’t care about knowledge as much as it cares about the college diploma? Cheating toward that end has become standard if not accepted outright. How many of us, when undercharged at a shop or restaurant, pay what we really owe? Are we fudging our tax return? Do we rip and share music CD or movie DVDs without paying the companies that produced them? We swindle people and businesses to give stuff for free or so cheap that slave labor was required to produce it. Who needs to make a decent living when we can find grounds to sue the pants off someone who has: doctors, businesses, churches, anyone that has a sack of money for us to take as ours. We are nation of lying, cheating, litigating and stealing reprobates that have rationalized everything we do as “victimless”, “harmless”, “consensual”, “individual rights” but fail to see our actions as equivalent as dumping toxic waste into the ocean or polluting the air we all breathe. Oh but what I do in private is no one’s business! Really? This weakening of morals and civility has made Donald Trump an option—because he is like us when it comes down to it—fast and loose.
• The pornographic and lewd language of Donald Trump is simply a reflection of America. Explicit sexuality, foul language, disrespect and sacrilege are common course in cartoons, sitcoms, movies, network television, sesame street, romper room and every conduit of American life. Why would we expect our leaders not to be imbued with it? Are you imbued with it? Donald Trump says out loud what every politician says in the halls of the state house and Congress. And as long as their ideology agrees with ours we find it endearing, deserving or humorous. We defend it. Enter the Donald.

Donald Trump is simply anyone of us with lots of money, lots of influence and the center stage of celebrity. Nothing else matters. We have sowed the wind. And now, we reap the whirlwind.

The Germans are known for their engineering and, in particular, the engineering of legendary cars. The brands of Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Porsche, BMW and even breeds of Volkswagen are synonymous with the highest standards of quality and feats of engineering. And should you be so fortunate to see, let alone drive, a Bugatti Veyron, you will have encountered the ultimate in automotive design reserved for select Saudi princes and rich gangster rappers.

But there’s another legendary car, also crafted by Germans that many have never heard of and may find almost as rare to encounter as the renowned Bugatti “ride”. My family had the once in a lifetime opportunity to cruise around in this collector’s item while visiting a museum downtown. Those fortunate enough to own one of these automotive gems, so unique and so rare, will hold on to them tenaciously as family heirlooms to be passed on from generation to generation.

Readers who follow automotive news know that I speak of nothing other than the legendaryTrabant 601, manufactured by VEB Sachsenring Automobilwerke Zwickau from 1963 – 1991. Yes the Trabant, endearingly referred to as the “Trabbi” —a car like no other, thankfully. Just take a look at these specs (source Wikipedia):

• Air cooled two cylinder 600cc two-stroke engine with a eye-popping 26 horsepower – about the same as a large lawnmower.
• The car took 21 seconds to get from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) with a top speed of 112 km/h (70 mph), assuming it did not fall apart before then.
• There were two main features with the engine: the smoky exhaust and the pollution it produced —nine times the amount of hydrocarbons and five times the carbon monoxide emissions of the average European car of 2007.
• The fuel consumption was a respectable 34 mpg with a dipstick inserted into the tank to determine how much fuel remains.
• The fuel tank was placed high up in the engine compartment so that fuel could be fed to the carburetor by a technological marvel called gravity at an increased fire risk in front-end accidents.
• Sturdy duroplast construction made of recycled material, cotton waste and phenol resins from the dye industry—going green before green was cool.
• Streamlined with the removal of unnecessary safety features such as brake lights and turn signals.
• The lifespan of an average Trabant was 28 years because if you waited enough time for the privilege to buy one, that was probably the last car you would ever get to own.

So how is it that the Trabant, designed and manufactured by Germans, could be listed as one of the worst cars ever built? Because this wasn’t the Germany we know and love, fueled by freedom, capitalism, engineering pride and corporate enterprise. This was state controlled East Germany, monopolized, void of competition, and deprived of any incentive to do anything remarkable. And so goes America as we outsource our lives to the drab and dreary juggernaut of Socialism and government issued healthcare, retirement, education and industry.

Enjoy