Well, it's not strictly true that Prof Roger Wotton from UCL (a.k.a. the Godless College of Gower Street) made that claim; he is rather a demonstration of it. He has apparently published an article in a UCL magazine all about how angels cannot fly. This claim alone is simply foolish. Given that angels are wholly spiritual beings, they can neither fly nor not fly; asking the question "can angels fly?" is about as meaningful as asking "what colour is next Tuesday?"
On closer examination, it turns out that he claimed that angels, as they are portrayed in art especially painting, are anatomically incapable of flight, due to underdeveloped shoulder and chest muscles. He then goes on to say that the fairies with gossamer wings so favoured by sentimental Victorian illustrators can't fly either!
Some of Professor Wotton's approach might simply be a certain robust scepticism, which is no bad thing in a scientist as the Climategate scandal has recently shown. Perhaps he might be motivated by scorn for New Age angelology and all its works & pomps. However if he is seriously suggesting that the sort of Angels described here are the sentimental anthropomorphic figures of angel cards, he really ought to think again. Better still, he might keep in future keep to areas about which he knows something. After all even a fool, if he will hold his peace shall be counted wise: and if he close his lips, a man of understanding.
Lastly, if you want a good imaginative picture of what an encounter with an angel might be like, check out John C. Wright Esq and his shortest of short stories.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Saturday, December 05, 2009
No Catholics need apply.
The title above does not refer to the EU (viz. the Buttiglione affair) nor is it a lament for CINO institutions that no longer, as a rule, employ Catholics. (The following tagline to a job ad is typical "As a Catholic foundation, the College actively encourages applications from diverse cultural and faith communities".)
Rather I'm talking about this group, which on the face of it has neither a need nor any conceivable reason to include Catholics. After all they are commemorating the publication of the "Authorised Version" of the Bible, sometimes referred to as the King James Bible. This was specifically intended to be a Bible for Protestants, whether Anglican or Presbyterian, and thus definitely not for the benefit of the benighted Papists. Unless, of course, you consider it a benefit that they un-pape themselves and become good Calvinists, or Lutherans or Cranmerians or whatever.
Well, that's not my gripe. Commemorating the KJV is no harm at all, even in strictly cultural terms. The KJV & Shakespeare are after all at the roots of the English language as we know it; in order to know it better, we need to know those sources better. I will go even further (in a dangerously ecumenical direction) and say that those who meant to put the Bible in the hands of ordinary Christians did well to do so. Their versions & footnotes I leave to another day's discussion. My complaint instead is with the complete omission of any mention of Catholicism or Catholic biblical scholarship altogether. The Authorised Version of 1611 is heavily dependent on the Tyndale New Testament; this much is a truism. What is in equally little doubt is that it has an equal if not greater debt to the Latin Vulgate, which was the Bible read by every educated person for a thousand years before then and for some centuries after. Moreover, the English translations sponsored by the Catholic Church predate the 1611 KJV by a year for the Old Testament and 29 years for the New! The history of the Bible in English on the 2011 Trust's website mentions none of this. Even more galling is their appropriation of figures doubtfully Christian as "Bible Heroes", while implying that J. R. R. Tolkien was some sort of Protestant! (For example, they have Tolkien "going to church" almost daily rather than attending Mass, and even "assisting in translating the Bible" while glossing over the fact that it was the specifically Catholic Jerusalem Bible that he worked on.)
Marking the 400th Year of the KJV is a very worthy thing but to do so by selectively ignoring salient facts, omitting chunks of relevant context and claiming as your own those who were not is a bit much. The 2011 Trust gets full marks for enthusiasm but scrapes a Third for fairness.
Rather I'm talking about this group, which on the face of it has neither a need nor any conceivable reason to include Catholics. After all they are commemorating the publication of the "Authorised Version" of the Bible, sometimes referred to as the King James Bible. This was specifically intended to be a Bible for Protestants, whether Anglican or Presbyterian, and thus definitely not for the benefit of the benighted Papists. Unless, of course, you consider it a benefit that they un-pape themselves and become good Calvinists, or Lutherans or Cranmerians or whatever.
Well, that's not my gripe. Commemorating the KJV is no harm at all, even in strictly cultural terms. The KJV & Shakespeare are after all at the roots of the English language as we know it; in order to know it better, we need to know those sources better. I will go even further (in a dangerously ecumenical direction) and say that those who meant to put the Bible in the hands of ordinary Christians did well to do so. Their versions & footnotes I leave to another day's discussion. My complaint instead is with the complete omission of any mention of Catholicism or Catholic biblical scholarship altogether. The Authorised Version of 1611 is heavily dependent on the Tyndale New Testament; this much is a truism. What is in equally little doubt is that it has an equal if not greater debt to the Latin Vulgate, which was the Bible read by every educated person for a thousand years before then and for some centuries after. Moreover, the English translations sponsored by the Catholic Church predate the 1611 KJV by a year for the Old Testament and 29 years for the New! The history of the Bible in English on the 2011 Trust's website mentions none of this. Even more galling is their appropriation of figures doubtfully Christian as "Bible Heroes", while implying that J. R. R. Tolkien was some sort of Protestant! (For example, they have Tolkien "going to church" almost daily rather than attending Mass, and even "assisting in translating the Bible" while glossing over the fact that it was the specifically Catholic Jerusalem Bible that he worked on.)
Marking the 400th Year of the KJV is a very worthy thing but to do so by selectively ignoring salient facts, omitting chunks of relevant context and claiming as your own those who were not is a bit much. The 2011 Trust gets full marks for enthusiasm but scrapes a Third for fairness.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Illuminations
Those who had a look at our wedding website, back in the day, may remember the Best Man. Well he's now produced a book and not just any book. It's a collection of his photographs from around Ireland, all of them taken as is, without any artificial lighting and with some amazing results! Have a look at it here or better still check back in a few days when online ordering has been set up. At €25 it's better than most other Christmas presents you'd get at twice the price! (NB My only vested interest in this publication is that, having helped at the launch, I got two bottles of red for my trouble!) The website for it is very good too but I admit that I'm biased given that the webmaster is my beloved helpmeet and the mother of my firstborn.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The kindness of strangers
It's a shock and a surprise but in a very pleasant way to see how good people can be, even in this hectic and sometimes cruel world. A few weeks ago I was running a little late and thus hurrying through Dartmouth Square toward Leeson St. Of course, careless speed no less than pride goeth before a fall. This fall was, if I say so myself, spectacular. My fall was broken by my face. There was little noticeable change, at least once I stopped bleeding. My glasses were broken too, and I was generally aching and sore.
Out of the blue a receptionist emerged from a neighbouring office, offering help. Her boss followed with a chair, then some ministering angel brought a hot cup of tea. Anti-septic wipes, tissues and plasters followed, as did a kind bystander who used my mobile to call my 9am appointment to explain why I was really very late.
It was heartening to discover that, in the timeless words of Fr Werenfried van Straaten OPraem, "people are better than you think!" Deo gratias.
Out of the blue a receptionist emerged from a neighbouring office, offering help. Her boss followed with a chair, then some ministering angel brought a hot cup of tea. Anti-septic wipes, tissues and plasters followed, as did a kind bystander who used my mobile to call my 9am appointment to explain why I was really very late.
It was heartening to discover that, in the timeless words of Fr Werenfried van Straaten OPraem, "people are better than you think!" Deo gratias.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Zoë Sunniva
Anyone who is in the vicinity is welcome to join Lowdenclear and me for the baptism of our firstborn Zoë Sunniva at 3.00pm in St Kevin's, Harrington St, Dublin 8. Anyone who cannot be there in person, is welcome to pray for our little treasure as she joins the Mystical Body.
Friday, September 04, 2009
A great joy, buíochas le Dia!
Lowdenclear and I are delighted to announce that our daughter Zoë Sunniva was born at 23.29 on the 3rd of September 2009 weighing 8lbs 13oz! She is beautiful, smart and quick on the uptake, just like her mother. Grateful thanks to the midwives at Holles St and Our Lady, St Gerard Majella, St Maria Goretti and sundry other heavenly patrons for favours granted in the course of the last few days. Te Deum laudamus ...
Thursday, August 20, 2009
For Mark Shea ... (he's as likely to read my blog as Antonin Scalia is to read his!)
Mark Shea is an intelligent man but some days he can manage to be extraordinarily stupid. Today is one of those days. He decided to take issue with a [PDF ALERT!] dissenting judgement handed down by Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the US Supreme Court. There is nothing wrong with that, of course; Scalia is as deserving of critical examination as any other jurist. Shea however is lazy and disingenuous in his criticisms. Scalia would have denied an appeal from a man under sentence of death; he did so on the straightforward grounds that there was no constitutional provision (and no legal precedent) allowing the US Supreme Court to hear the case. So far, so routine you might think. Scalia, as is typical for him, expressed himself in forthright language; the sort of language that reminds me of Kenneth Tynan's description of Brendan Behan "ribald, flushed, and spoiling for a fight". Shea parlays that into "Essentially, Scalia argues that it is more important to execute the innocent than to stop the System from killing somebody the System has found guilty according to the System" and goes on to say that
The first piece of Sheavian idiocy is that Scalia actually issued a 6 page dissent that is freely downloadable from the US Supreme Court website; Shea never links to it and shows no evidence that he has actually read it. He certainly never quotes from it except at second hand. That is simple laziness, or worse, deliberate neglect of basic diligence. What Shea does link to is a website that is thoroughly hostile to Scalia, and he then takes their version of events as Gospel.
The second piece of Sheavian carelessness is that you get no clue from his blog post that the defendant in the case had a full jury trial, an appeal, a State supreme court appeal and a clemency hearing from the Georgia board of pardons and paroles. The last named element alone took one whole year as they re-examined all the previous proceedings and re-interviewed witnesses and so forth.
So having failed to take account of the argument Scalia actually made, and then having demonstrated total ignorance of every element of the case itself, Shea informs us "I don't have a burning interest in the brilliant defenses of why it's okay to hang an innocent man". I'm not at all clear how someone who has as little acquaintnace as Shea does with this case can know that the defendant is innocent. He doesn't present any argument at all for why this might be the case and he certainly doesn't show how the original trial got things wrong.
Now none of this should be taken to mean that Scalia is necessarily right about the case of Troy Anthony Davis; he might or might not be. What is clear to me is that it is incumbent on anyone choosing to comment publicly on such a matter to inform himself about what has actually happened. Furthermore, if you want to criticise an argument then READ that argument, NOT someone else's secondhand threadbare precis of it.
Lastly, Mark Shea needs to engage in a little quiet reading. He could start with the text of the United States constitution; it's a great document but as he can't even manage a six-page text, he might find it a bit of a stretch. Anyhow, he'd find the separation of powers laid out pretty clearly there. The US Constitution is all about power; taking it, breaking it up and sharing it around. It makes the powerful struggle with each other, so that no one of them gets to have the whole coercive machinery of State at their disposal. Thus Federal battles State, Executive battles Legislature and Judiciary (Federal and State) fights everyone! This marvelous system of decentralised and limited government has lasted since 1787 but because of this one case, which he hardly understands, Shea says that the US Constitution "can go to hell."
So we're left with a distinguished Catholic apologist who is an intelligent man (read his blog, he is definitely a Bear of Big Brain) and who really should stick to apologetics. From would-be constitutional reformers of that stamp, dear Lord deliver us!
I have this wild notion that if it's a choice between killing somebody who is innocent and bowing down in reverence to the smooth machine-like functioning of a manmade system of rules and regulations, the manmade system can go to hell. And the Constitution is, at the end of the day, a manmade system.Now this is about the most asinine and idiotic thing that Shea has managed in a disputatious public life that is about 2/3 good sense and 1/3 near criminal idiocy.
The first piece of Sheavian idiocy is that Scalia actually issued a 6 page dissent that is freely downloadable from the US Supreme Court website; Shea never links to it and shows no evidence that he has actually read it. He certainly never quotes from it except at second hand. That is simple laziness, or worse, deliberate neglect of basic diligence. What Shea does link to is a website that is thoroughly hostile to Scalia, and he then takes their version of events as Gospel.
The second piece of Sheavian carelessness is that you get no clue from his blog post that the defendant in the case had a full jury trial, an appeal, a State supreme court appeal and a clemency hearing from the Georgia board of pardons and paroles. The last named element alone took one whole year as they re-examined all the previous proceedings and re-interviewed witnesses and so forth.
So having failed to take account of the argument Scalia actually made, and then having demonstrated total ignorance of every element of the case itself, Shea informs us "I don't have a burning interest in the brilliant defenses of why it's okay to hang an innocent man". I'm not at all clear how someone who has as little acquaintnace as Shea does with this case can know that the defendant is innocent. He doesn't present any argument at all for why this might be the case and he certainly doesn't show how the original trial got things wrong.
Now none of this should be taken to mean that Scalia is necessarily right about the case of Troy Anthony Davis; he might or might not be. What is clear to me is that it is incumbent on anyone choosing to comment publicly on such a matter to inform himself about what has actually happened. Furthermore, if you want to criticise an argument then READ that argument, NOT someone else's secondhand threadbare precis of it.
Lastly, Mark Shea needs to engage in a little quiet reading. He could start with the text of the United States constitution; it's a great document but as he can't even manage a six-page text, he might find it a bit of a stretch. Anyhow, he'd find the separation of powers laid out pretty clearly there. The US Constitution is all about power; taking it, breaking it up and sharing it around. It makes the powerful struggle with each other, so that no one of them gets to have the whole coercive machinery of State at their disposal. Thus Federal battles State, Executive battles Legislature and Judiciary (Federal and State) fights everyone! This marvelous system of decentralised and limited government has lasted since 1787 but because of this one case, which he hardly understands, Shea says that the US Constitution "can go to hell."
So we're left with a distinguished Catholic apologist who is an intelligent man (read his blog, he is definitely a Bear of Big Brain) and who really should stick to apologetics. From would-be constitutional reformers of that stamp, dear Lord deliver us!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The indefatigable Berenike of Laodicea
The above mentioned Berenike of Laodicea was kind enough to point out, à propos of these entries on Migne, that his work is available here as well. (Although she rather unkindly calls them my "Migning posts" ...) Anyway, Migne's Patrologiae is available at that link but it downloads in a different format to the links I highlighted. Hopefully they'll be of use to penurious scholars trawling th'interweb.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Canon Law & the Recife Case revisited
I blogged last week about the heartbreaking Recife Case that was so spectacularly mishandled by Archbishop Fisichella. Well, now there is a little good news. While Fisichella has not been publicly reprimanded nor has he been dismissed, at least his manifest errors have been corrected in that august organ L'Osservatore Romano!
God bless the Holy Father for acting and may God preserve him and give him strength for many years yet.
(NB If you haven't already, I urge you to bookmark Dr Ed Peters blog and to sign up for the incomparable Chiesa service provided by Sandro Magister and La Repubblica in four languages!)
God bless the Holy Father for acting and may God preserve him and give him strength for many years yet.
(NB If you haven't already, I urge you to bookmark Dr Ed Peters blog and to sign up for the incomparable Chiesa service provided by Sandro Magister and La Repubblica in four languages!)
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Canon Law & the Recife Case
The Archbishop of Recife (in Brazil) recently had to excommunicate an abortionist for killing the twin babies of a 9 year old girl who had been repeatedly raped by her own father. Mgr Cardoso Sobrinho (who has since retired having reached the age of 75) explained to anyone who would listen that he had stayed close to the girl and her family and tried to bring comfort to all the innocent victims concerned. Apparently he didn't explain loudly enough for Salvatore (aka Rino) Fisichella; this individual explained in a newspaper op-ed that excommunication was not the way to go and that instead "closeness" to the girl and "compassion" was the way forward. This "compassion" includes NOT condemning the doctors who performed the abortions. So far, so journalistic boilerplate.
Except Mr Fisichella isn't Mr, he's Mgr. Actually he's His Excellency Salvatore Fisichella, Titular Archbishop of Vicohabentia and President of the Pontifical Academy for Life! His comments were hailed by Frances Kissling the infamous pro-abortion "Catholic" as allowing "that there are some cases officially acknowledged where individuals can choose abortion and have a calm conscience". The paper in which Fisichella penned these incoherent ramblings?
L'Osservatore Romano.
That's right, the newspaper owned by the Pope.
Well God bless Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho for not taking this lying down. He demanded a right of reply in L'Osservatore but was ignored. So he has circulated a dossier outlining his complaint to approximately 100 Curial officials. He's hoping that this will spark an appropriate response but in the event that it doesn't he's prepared, according to reports, to lodge a formal denunciation of Mgr Fisichella which will require some sort of formal resolution.
Two other interesting responses: The first came from the redoubtable Mgr Michel Schooyans and can be found here. He suggests that only Fisichella's resignation on foot of a strong statement from the Holy Father can now salvage the situation. His piece on Lifesite News is worth reading in its entirety but there is a handy little summary at the top if you want to see just the main points. Secondly, I (like many others no doubt) was waiting to see what Dr Ed Peters would have to say.
Dr Peters is a canon lawyer, a serious Catholic and a man who expends considerable effort explaining to anyone who wants to read his blog how canon law works. He is also a calm measured sort of man who doesn't blast off denunciations on a whim but instead offers useful, practical solutions. Here's his summary and analysis of the Recife case which includes links to all the main public documents and comments. It's well worth examining and In the Light of the Law is well worth bookmarking.
What the Holy Father or his curial collaborators will do is anyone's guess. What the poor girl and her dead babies need is lots of prayer. Please God, Archbishop Cardoso will persevere in seeking justice and Archbishop Fisichella will come to see the error of his ways. Oremus.
Except Mr Fisichella isn't Mr, he's Mgr. Actually he's His Excellency Salvatore Fisichella, Titular Archbishop of Vicohabentia and President of the Pontifical Academy for Life! His comments were hailed by Frances Kissling the infamous pro-abortion "Catholic" as allowing "that there are some cases officially acknowledged where individuals can choose abortion and have a calm conscience". The paper in which Fisichella penned these incoherent ramblings?
L'Osservatore Romano.
That's right, the newspaper owned by the Pope.
Well God bless Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho for not taking this lying down. He demanded a right of reply in L'Osservatore but was ignored. So he has circulated a dossier outlining his complaint to approximately 100 Curial officials. He's hoping that this will spark an appropriate response but in the event that it doesn't he's prepared, according to reports, to lodge a formal denunciation of Mgr Fisichella which will require some sort of formal resolution.
Two other interesting responses: The first came from the redoubtable Mgr Michel Schooyans and can be found here. He suggests that only Fisichella's resignation on foot of a strong statement from the Holy Father can now salvage the situation. His piece on Lifesite News is worth reading in its entirety but there is a handy little summary at the top if you want to see just the main points. Secondly, I (like many others no doubt) was waiting to see what Dr Ed Peters would have to say.
Dr Peters is a canon lawyer, a serious Catholic and a man who expends considerable effort explaining to anyone who wants to read his blog how canon law works. He is also a calm measured sort of man who doesn't blast off denunciations on a whim but instead offers useful, practical solutions. Here's his summary and analysis of the Recife case which includes links to all the main public documents and comments. It's well worth examining and In the Light of the Law is well worth bookmarking.
What the Holy Father or his curial collaborators will do is anyone's guess. What the poor girl and her dead babies need is lots of prayer. Please God, Archbishop Cardoso will persevere in seeking justice and Archbishop Fisichella will come to see the error of his ways. Oremus.
Friday, July 03, 2009
In the old days we had a joke ...
What's the difference between the United States and the Irish Republic? They have Bob Hope and Johnny Cash, whereas we have no hope and no cash!
In these straitened times things are different. We, once again, have no hope and no cash but neither do they. Well, maybe they have a hope'n'change kind of hope being peddled by "The One" but here's what Bob has to say about them.
In these straitened times things are different. We, once again, have no hope and no cash but neither do they. Well, maybe they have a hope'n'change kind of hope being peddled by "The One" but here's what Bob has to say about them.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Honduras: I haven't been sure what to think ...
On the one hand, President Zelaya is a bosom buddy of Hugo Chavez, a wannabe totalitarian dictator who is close to achieving his dream. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of a military coup even if is carried out by those who are otherwise on the right side of the law, Zelaya having violated the Constitution and broken the law. So I was mightily relieved to find this post at the Dawn Patrol linking to this post at Witnessing Hope which makes things much clearer. Sadly it doesn't seem that Zelaya will face trial at this stage, as he ought to but we live in hope.
A last dose of the Fathers, this time in translation
While on my peregrinations through the text section of the Internet Archive, I found some of the CUA Press translations of the Church Fathers, edited by Ludwig Schopp & then Roy J. Deferrari and published between the mid 1940s and the late 1960s. Here are the links to online versions and PDFs. For those who want to rummage easily through the text collections follow this link to download a Firefox add-on which will run in your search-bar.
1 - The Apostolic Fathers
2 - Writings of St Augustine, Volume 4
4 - Writings of Saint Augustine, Volume 2
5 - Writings of St Augustine, Volume 1
7 - Niceta of Remesiana, Silpicius Severus, Vincent of Lerins & Prosper of Aquitaine
8 - St Augustine The City Of God Books I-VII
9 - St Basil Ascetical Works
11 - St Augustine Commentary On The Lord's Sermon On The Mount & 17 Related Sermons
13 - Saint Basil Letters
17 - St Peter Chrysologus Selected Sermons & St Valerian Homilies
18 - St Augustine's Works Vol 10, Letters Volume II
19 - Eusebius Ecclesiastical History
20 - St Augustine Volume 11, Letters Volume III
22 - Funeral Orations
23 - Clement Of Alexandria, Christ The Educator
26 - St Ambrose, Letters
27 - St Augustine on Marriage and other subjects, (volume 15)
30 - St Augustine's Letters IV (volume 12)
31 - St Caesarius Of Arles, Sermons
32 - St Augustine's Letters V (volume 13)
35 - St Augustine Against Julian (volume 16)
36 - St Cyprian Treatises
37 - St John of Damascus Writings
38 - St Augustine, Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons
39 - St Gregory the Great, Dialogues
40 - Tertullian, Disciplinary Moral & Ascetical Works
41 - St John Chrysostom' Commentary on St John
42 - St Ambrose Hexameron, Paradise, Cain & Abel
43 - The Poems of Prudentius
44 - St Ambrose, Theological And Dogmatic Works
45 - St Augustine, The Trinity (volume 18)
46 - St Basil, Exegetic Homilies
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Patrologiae Cursus Completus - Series Latina
Migne - PL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)