Flos Carmeli

Request for Information--Fr. Jozo Zovko

Request for Information--Fr. Jozo Zovko

I just received a bulletin from a group near me that makes a number of claims for which I need either verification or refutation and authoratative sources. Could anyone who knows of these matters please help?

Has Fr. Zovko been stripped of his faculties as Priest?

What is the actual standing of the apparitions at Mudjugorje? They say that the Holy See has not approved them (I believe this to be true) and that 41 of the 42 Bishops of Yugoslavia do not believe or support the apparitions. Is this so?

The reason I ask is that I know of a great many friends and acquaintances who annually attend a Mudjugorje conference here in town. I have been tossed back and forth on this issue over and over, and it would be most helpful to at least thoroughly understand the status as it is today so that I can advise or if necessary warn people about it.

Thanks.

Faith Alone? Another delightful resource

Faith Alone?

Another delightful resource from Project Canterbury. Each week this group comes up with more and more resources in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. This particular little piece relates to an ongoing discussion of justification and salvation. Go here to see the first portion of the Harmonia Apostolica.

Praise the Lord! Two reasons

Praise the Lord!

Two reasons for praise and thanks:

Thanks to all who prayed for Carole, the birth went well and mother and daughter are fine.

And this

from Karl Schudt’s Summa Contra Mundum

I am sooooo happy that Bishop Weigand has told Gray Davis he can't go to communion anymore. May I suggest that if you are a Sacramento Catholic, in support, you write a big fat check and donate it to the diocese? Even if you aren't a Sacramento Catholic, you may wish to send some money. Then tell Bishop Weigand that you are doing it because you are so excited to see the Church's teaching so publicly proclaimed.

Here is a quote from Gray Davis's spokesman: "There are a lot of Catholics who are pro-choice. Does the bishop want all Catholics to stop receiving Holy Communion?" he asked. "Who's going to be left in church?"

I think that we have a historic opportunity to prove the forces of death wrong. I think that we have a historic opportunity to prove the forces of death wrong. I am going to send off a check tomorrow along with a letter telling Bishop Weigand how thankful I am for his courageous stand, and how I wish to donate to the good work of the diocese in order to stave off any drop in donations from pro-choice Catholics. Here's the address if you want to do the same.

Most Reverend William K. Weigand
Diocese of Sacramento
2110 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95818-2541

P.S. If you think this is a good idea, feel free to link to it or copy it for your blog.

Praise the Lord for He is good. His love endures forever! Praise Him! And sincere thanks to His Minister, Bishop Weigand. And sincere thanks to Ms. vonHuben who brought this to my attention.

An Important Commentary on All

An Important Commentary on All Variety of Futile Endeavors

While I'm upsetting my audience, I may as well do it all at once. Here's a remarkable commentary that encapsulates much of my view of economics, war efforts, and other causes held so near and dear to some hearts.

THE JUMBLIES Edward Lear

I

They went to sea in a Sieve, they did,
In a Sieve they went to sea:
In spite of all there friends could say,
On a winter's morn, on a stormy day,
In a Sieve they went to sea!
And when the Sieve turned round and round,
And every one cried, 'You'll all be drowned'
They called aloud, 'Our Sieve ain't big,
But we don't care a button! we don't care a fig!
In a Sieve we'll go to sea!'
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

II

They sailed away in a Sieve, they did,
In a Sieve they sailed so fast,
With only a beautiful pea-green veil
Tied with a riband by way of a sail,
To a small tobacco-pipe mast;
And every one said, who saw them go,
'O won't they be soon upset, you know!
For the sky is dark, and the voyage is long,
And happen what may, it's extremely wrong
In a Sieve to sail so fast!'
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

III

The water it soon came in, it did,
The water it soon came in;
So to keep them dry, they wrapped their feet
In a pinky paper all folded neat,
And they fastened it down with a pin.
And they passed the night in a crockery-jar,
And each of them said, 'How wise we are!
Though the sky be dark, and the voyage be long,
Yet we never can think we were rash or wrong,
While round in our Sieve we spin!
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

IV

And all night long they sailed away;
And when the sun went down,
They whistled and warbled a moony song
To the echoing sound of a coppery gong,
In the shade of the mountains brown.
'O Timballo! How happy we are,
When we live in a sieve and a crockery jar,
And all night long in the moonlight pale,
We sail away with a pea-green sail,
In the shade of the mountains brown!'
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

V

They sailed to the Western Sea, they did,
To a land all covered with trees,
And they bought an Owl, and a useful Cart,
And a pound of Rice, and a Cranberry Tart,
And a hive of silvery Bees.
And they bought a Pig, and some green Jack-daws,
And a lovely Monkey with lollipop paws,
And forty bottles of Ring-Bo-Ree,
And no end of Stilton Cheese.
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

VI

And in twenty years they all came back,
In twenty years or more,
And every one said, 'How tall they,ve grown!
For they've been to the Lakes, and the Torrible Zone,
And the hills of the Chankly Bore;
And they drank their health, and gave them a feast
Of dumplings made with beautiful yeast;
And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve, -
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Didn't Ecclesiastes tell us that "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity." Isn't every pursuit outside that of increasing our love and our intimacy with God the greatest of foolishness? Isn't every endeavor apart from God going "to the sea in a sieve?" Until and unless those of us who are faithful to God make a decision for holiness, how can we hope to change the world? How can we be disciples if we ourselves are not disciplined? God wants us all to be Saints, and presently His holy churches are crowded with St. Augustines before he was saintly--"Lord make me saintly, but not yet." If not now, when? If not us, then whom? If we squander our time in futile pursuits, when do we have time for God?

Found on "Not for Sheep":

Found on "Not for Sheep": How "peaceful" are you?

Another of those endless quizzes, based on ten questions, the validity of this is speculative; however, first my results showing me to be a "center-left" (as though that has some meaning) and highly rational (10 out of 10--though where that comes from is also speculative) and then the link to the quiz.. Enjoy.

Sacrificed for a Mouse I

Sacrificed for a Mouse

I have refrained for a while from commenting on a decision near and dear to my heart because I feared intemperate words might fly forth on wings of wrath. Time has cooled this possibility and now I can say that the "Eldred" decision of the Supreme Court, while possibly (and only possibly) proper law, is cultural disaster. If this law had been in effect in the time of Mark Twain, his works would have entered public domain only in 1980, thus killing the possibilities of the many derivative works that Twain's work has given rise to.

But setting aside the issue of derivative works for a moment, the greater damage is done to those authors whose works are "protected" unto oblivion by this law. There are a great many authors (Thorne Smith (author of Topper and I Married a Witch), H. Rider Haggard (She and King Solomon's Mines [nearly perpetually in print, but try finding some of the others], James Gould Cozzens Castaway) whose works are only selectively in print at any given time. Presently I know of no book by Cozzens and none by Smith. Because these are not public domain, they will not be picked up by many of the low-level publishers that make their money producing inexpensive versions of public domain works. Hence, a whole field of authors whose work is simply dead. No one can publish them without the enormous effort of finding out who holds the rights, but neither will any publisher basing their revenues on the next Michael Crichton give these works a second thought. Think about your local bookstore--How many items by Francois Mauriac, Bjorn Bjornesterne, Par Lagerkvist, or Rabindranith Tagore have you seen on the shelves. All of these were Nobel Prize winning authors in their time--some, admittedly better left in the oblivion to which they have been consigned, but some (Mauriac, I think of particularly) far more worth reading that the vast majority of those who have been given the laurels in recent years. (Claude Simon? please--the average grocery list has far great readability and literary merit, Toni Morrison--talk about a sop to the pomo politically correct crowd, a very fine writer, but certainly not at her age of Nobel quality, the list does go on).

The point I make here is that much is lost to us through the shortsightedness of a congress that makes ever-increasing copyright limits on works, largely to protect trademarked products and enterprises--most notoriously, Mickey Mouse, for whom the newest copyright extension was specifically tailored.

However, as usual when the law oversteps itself, there are those already flooding the electronic wavelengths with reams of materials from these authors. In Australia, where the copyright law grants about 40 years less protection, the Australian Gutenberg project has already posted a good deal of Orwell, and now is producing much of Virginia Woolf's oeuvre.

I conclude this heady rant, more vitriolic than I normally care to be, with this caution from Maucalay's famous speech on copyright--

I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?

Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living. If I saw, Sir, any probability that this bill could be so amended in the Committee that my objections might be removed, I would not divide the House in this stage. But I am so fully convinced that no alteration which would not seem insupportable to my honourable and learned friend, could render his measure supportable to me, that I must move, though with regret, that this bill be read a second time this day six months.

The trends he noted had already been prominent in the newsgroups and usenet, but I expect that frequent and flagrant violation of copyright will become more apparent and more difficult to pursue because of distributed service and other means of transmitting electronic files without a centralized server. I do not hail these efforts, but I do expect them to grow. I have noted the appearance in recent days of a great deal of material--it seemed almost as if the world had held its breath for this decision, and with its announcement, the floodgates had opened.

It is important to preserve our access to works that are not huge money makers. The present copyright act is in part responsible to the progressive restriction of what is found on the shelves of most bookstores. So bad is the trend that it is often difficult to find a book that is more than ten years old not written by some mega-blockbuster author. Check it out. See how many John Dickson Carr, A.A. Fair, Erle Stanley Gardner, and Ellery Queen novels you find on the shelves of the mystery section in your local bookstore. The loss of these treasures is an incalculable loss for literature and for genre fiction. It is an incalculable loss for all of us , and it is predicated on the protection of a mouse.

The March for Life Please

The March for Life

Please see what The Mighty Barrister has to say regarding this event (this link et seq.). An event of some importance. Please also see what the Washington Post felt needed to be the emphasis of this March, courtesy of Mr. da Fiesole at Disputations.

Do As I Say, Not

Do As I Say, Not as I Do

Delightful from Pepys's Diary

from The Diary of Samuel Pepys Sunday 22 January 1659/60

I went in the morning to Mr. Messum’s, where I met with W. Thurburn and sat with him in his pew. A very eloquent sermon about the duty of all to give good example in our lives and conversation, which I fear he himself was most guilty of not doing.

Ah, human nature does not change--we always seek to bend things to our own ends and to control others when we cannot control ourselves.

Resolving a Problem One of

Resolving a Problem

One of the wonderful things about being in a community like St. Blogs is that there are so many generous, thoughtful, and tremendously helpful people who will come to your aid to work out a problem. We see this time and again in a great many blogs. Last evening, Therese came to my aid with the following answer to a question:

I think it upholds the right of self defense while pointing to a better way. He argues that one can give oneself out of great love for the salvation of the other. Yet, such an offering cannot be given out of lack of love for life or for oneself -- ie. suicidal notions). One gives one's life, as sacrifice, not be cause it is worthless but because it is infinitely precious as Gift of God. All the sacrifices of the Old Testament were of things that were precious to the owners. Jesus was most precious to the Father. One gives all that one has a spirit of union with the generosity of the Incarnation and Cross.

Thank you. That confirms how I also read it. And it resolves a tremendously difficult issue for me--even though I understand this is not infallible teaching.

You probably are aware that I have been asking whether one can be a pacifist and a good Catholic. The answer seemed to be no, because a Good Catholic acknowledges the validity of Just War teaching. It would seem impossible to acknowledge both. But once again led by intuition rather than logic, I concluded that it must in some way be possible. And this passage suggests that a Christ-like nonresistance on a personal basis is not only permissible but commendable, perhaps even righteous. Thus, while Christ allowed from his disciples and apostles to defend themselves, He himself provided no defense, in fact no resistance to his captors at all. There is a group of Mennonites who emphasize this approach to all questions of aggression, not merely not engaging in the aggressive behavior, but putting up no resistance to it at all.

The key here is that it must be following the promptings of God, and it must be an individual willing to do so and teach by example, not an evangelism of words. In other words, one must acknowledge Catholic Doctrine as the minimal standard of personal behavior. You may defend yourself. However, you may, equally, led by God, offer no resistance whatsoever to your aggressor. What you may NOT do is to tell everyone that this nonresistance is incumbent on them all in their role as Christians. Thus , the "flaw" in the Mennonite teaching is not that they may not offer themselves up, but that they preach this is necessary for all.

What this means, ultimately, I don't know, but it has helped yet another very difficult piece or block of the puzzle to slide into place for me. I can at least now pray for the strength and the temperament to be allow this grace of sacrifice IF it is God's will. Boy, is that a scary thought, and yet wonderfully liberating and freeing. So I may say to others, "Yes, it is possible that a war may be just and those fighting it are engaged in a just cause; however, it is equally possible (can't speak to probability) to offer oneself completely that God's will be done.

Don't know why this didn't just come one like a light bulb--but those of us who are sometime scrupulous need additional encouragement. Just think of us as God's "problem children" and offer up extra prayers.

Prayers needed In addition to

Prayers needed
In addition to the requests below from yesterday, please remember Carole today as she undergoes induced labor. Pray for a safe delivery with no complications and healthy mother and child. Thanks.

For many very good friends as they await news of possible layoffs later this month.

Please especially keep in mind this intention from Kairos:

"If you would, please pray especially this week for Sally, me, and the continuing progress of our baby. the first doctor's exam is on Friday, and mystery pain continues. On this day in particular, please keep this one unborn child in mind, along with all the others. "

Evangelium Vitae This an excerpt

Evangelium Vitae

This an excerpt found in a cogent reflection at Minute Particulars:

from Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II

Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

My question to you all: What does it seem to mean.

I'll have to go to the source, but I may have found an answer to a bothersome question. Yes, I know this is not definitive, error-proof teaching, but it strikes me that it may at least contain the seeds of a solution to a difficult matter. Does this passage speak of pacifism at all? What does the reference to self-offering mean?

The Sometimes Derailed Train of

The Sometimes Derailed Train of Logic

I must admit it, another sign of my lack of charity, I very much enjoyed this post at Disputations. Be certain also to read the discussion in the comments.

A Warm Welcome To our

A Warm Welcome

To our new blogging friend at The C:Prompt. He's just getting started, so drop in and let him know that we really are a community, but we don't feel the need to talk it to death.

Apologies and Retractions Boy did

Apologies and Retractions

Boy did this post inspire some unexpected feedback chez Kairos. Admittedly, it fails in charity in the stereotypical depictions used to typify orders--I should be more aware of these things. And I thank the commenter at Kairos's place for reminding me that words have consequences and weight associated with them. So I reprint my apology to her, just as I amplified my comments to Kairos yesterday. My mea culpa:

I'm afraid I expressed myself poorly and what was said was not intended in any way to be demeaning to Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines, or any other of the Holy Orders. Many of these Orders are filled with very holy people who know God deeply and intimately, not just ABOUT God. In the context of my own experience, these Orders would not have been helpful to me because they would have appealed to my desire to know ABOUT and not to know. I'm sorry for the confusion and please accept my apologies if I have in any way offended. It certainly was not my intention and your correction is welcomed. It shows some of the shortcomings of the language in that sometimes you do not precisely express what you have in mind to say.

One must be judicious when trying to express what is in one's head. I failed here, I will fail again. Please do not hesitate to inform me when I do so--it reminds me that even when we are determined to do right, we can go woefully wrong to the detriment and harm of others.

Prayers Needed For many very

Prayers Needed

For many very good friends as they await news of possible layoffs later this month.

Please especially keep in mind this intention from Kairos:

"If you would, please pray especially this week for Sally, me, and the continuing progress of our baby. the first doctor's exam is on Friday, and mystery pain continues. On this day in particular, please keep this one unborn child in mind, along with all the others. "

Kairos Guy, you and Mrs. Kairos have been a mainstay of my "permanent" prayer list. I will be certain to elevate your intention by several degrees. Thanks for sharing the need for prayer.

Concentricycloidea Found them. In fact,

Concentricycloidea

Found them. In fact, it's more than a new order, it's a new class of echinoderms discovered in 1986 off the coast of New Zealand. Familiarly known as "sea-daisies." In order not to unduly slow the loading of the page, you can find a picture here (look for Xyloplax) and a little bit of information here. The former source states (erroneously, I think) that the Concentricycloidea are now thought to be part of the Asteroidea. (As though anyone here really cares--but it is very cool.)

Especially for Kathy the Carmelite

Especially for Kathy the Carmelite

Yep--here they are, some of the great jewels of the ocean:

Appendicularian



image from @sea.org

You can find out more about these amazing animals here

One of my personal favorites of recent date, a new phylum called Loricifera. There is a delicate, unearthly beauty about these that is impossible to describe. They are part of the interstitial fauna--an entire group of animals that live their entire lives in the spaces between sand-grains. The critter below is approximately 0.25 mm when fully grown--but it is not a protist! It is a full-fledged member of the Animalia!

Pliciloricus enigmatus
Image courtesy of NASA/Smithsonian

For more information and additional pictures of these lovely creature, check this site. Or google "loricifera."

I'm still looking for the echinoderm, as I have forgotten its designation. I thought it was Cyclosdiscus, but I realized that I am probably confusing it with the utterly alien, utterly creepy Laernodiscus porcelaini perhaps now known as or related to Sacculina carcini.

And Now for Something Completely

And Now for Something Completely Different: A Theme Song

This blog already has an anthem, expressed in the title, and lovely and beautiful hymn to our lady. But I have long needed a song for the lighter side. Last evening a few of us hijacked Dylan's blog, and he very kindly entertained us as we shared our enthusiasms. The reason for this hijacking is the song Dylan wrote (well, technically, the lyrics Dylan wrote for a tune). Even though he says it is a parody, I'm certain that it is a belated Christmas Gift to me. Herewith, from Dylan's blog the official theme song of Flos Carmeli:

We Swim the Deep Lyrics by Dylan

Here, in the ocean, big squid are swimming,
Dodging the sharks and eating small fish;
Undersea depths with creatures are brimming:
Lobsters and crabs you find on your dish.
We swim the deep, the whale and the dolphin;
Divers descend, are heard from no more.
Submarine snares that you could get caught in!
Best to stay dry and safe on the shore.

(to the tune of Gather Us In)

For those interested the "big squid" of the first line are probably Architeuthis, most likely Architeuthis dux

I am greatly relieved because I was going to have to use the Spongebob theme until this came about, and that might have offended Ms. vonHuben, who undoubtedly wishes to retain it for her own blog. So, my sincere thanks to Dylan who provided a bit of light for the day and a bit of joy for Boy who likes the song very much. (Although he has already expressed his ambition to become a surfer dude. Kewl!)

One point on the original hymn--I don't know about the objection to the lyrics, Dylan's song siren-like entranced me and I was unable to move to see the original entry--but the melody is one of the loveliest I can think of. I don't mind singing the song because it has the half-lamenting minor key stuff going on, and unlike most of the "show-tune" hymnal, this is fairly easily singable by people with a limited range and little musical training.

On Vocation--A Needed Amendment Therese

On Vocation--A Needed Amendment

Therese sounds a note of caution in a comment below:

"I really think being called to an order is a vocation and must be subject to a process of discernment. Going to one's weakest point may not always be God's will, nor practically possible."

This statement is important enough to require a reiteration and a definitive clarification of my purpose in making the post in the first place. First and foremost, she is correct, being called to an Order is a vocation. As a formation director and coordinator, I cannot possibly make this point strongly enough. Many well-intentioned people think that they must belong to an order to achieve holiness--but more about that later.

First, I DO NOT recommend that everyone play to their weakest point (nor do I think that Therese thought this). The point of the post below was to share something of my own process of discernment. These were things I very deliberately and very carefully thought and prayed about as I was considering the Carmelite Vocation. Taken alone, they probably would not have been decisive, but taken with the voice of St. John of the Cross, they were compelling evidence of where I needed to be.

So, please do follow Therese's advice regarding discernment if you are considering an order.

Also, please, please, please remember that not everyone is called to an order. One need not belong to any "named" group to achieve holiness. Following a rule is not the only, nor even the best way to holiness--following your heart and head and discerning the gentle lead of the Holy Spirit to God Himself is what each person is called to.

We have a great many people seeking to join Carmel, as I am sure many third orders experience, who have no real vocation, but who see this as yet another point on the scoreboard in the sky. God does not give extra points for joining an Order, for that matter He does not give points at all, but if He did we are told that it would be for obedience--"If you love me you will heed my commands." So, anyone thinking about a vocation out there, get a spiritual director and spend a lot of time discerning. Not everyone is called and you do a disservice to yourself and to the Order by trying to wedge yourself in. Holiness is not the sole property of Catholic Orders. Many of us find a way within them, but a great many more find a way in simply living holy lives in the Church at large.

Blog du Jour My list

Blog du Jour

My list of Blogs is getting impossibly long, but I couldn't help but add Gen X Revert, an utterly delightful, straightforward, and clear-thinking blog. I look forward to much good from this quarter and wish to thank the Blogmaster for his/her efforts thus far.

On Finding a Catholic Order--A

On Finding a Catholic Order--A Personal Perspective

Although this entry on Kairos's blog did not directly address the question, the response it provoked did in some measure, and it also tells some part of the story that is somewhat hidden and obscure here. Perhaps the same points have been reiterated many times, but seeing what I see among many Catholics, I cannot but repeat them again. There are many orders because there were a great many Saints who found pathways to God. We are called to the particular order that God wishes for us for reasons that we may not even fully understand. So nothing I say below should be taken as warning or encouraging anyone to any particular order, it is simply my experience.

My augmented response:
And in six paragraphs you [Kairos] move from what I term the "Jesuit" view to any of the many "mystical" views. Recognizing this temptation, and also recognizing a temperament that is subject to very, very, very fine distinctions and scruples, when choosing a Third Order to join, I chose deliberately to join one that did not play to "my strength" (quotation marks, for what do we have that has not been given us from above) but to my weakness. While I find the Benedictines, Jesuits, and Domincans very, very appealing, it is for all the wrong reasons--I don't need to know more ABOUT God, I need to KNOW Him. Ultimately, these paths will also lead to union, but they present a tangled snare for those of us already too much in our heads. I prefer the stony path of conversion of my own heart. Every day, I call upon God to honor the promise made in Ezekiel and to take my heart of stone and give me a heart of flesh. I will be with Elijah at the Wadi Cherith and wait upon the Lord, I will stay with him in the mountain fastness and let Him reveal Himself as He will. I will not trouble myself with things beyond me, but I will focus on the love I owe Him for every breath and heartbeat. All that Catholicism is, when the finery is stripped away, is a pathway for loving God completely--a system of Love instituted by the Creator for our redemption and the redemption of the fallen world.

Current Reading and a Quotation

Current Reading and a Quotation

A Quotation from Leif Enger's Peace Like a River: "But how do you wake a man knocked cold by love?"

A skin-pricklingly beautiful thought--read the book for the context.

Also playing:
Greg Tobin Conclave because we all know that it takes an irritant to produce a pearl, and I suspect this may end up as irritating as it gets.
Karl Rahner Encounters with Silence with thanks to a blogfriend.
Concepcion Cabrera de Amida Before the Altar
St. John of the Cross Ascent of Mount Carmel
Leonard Doohan The Contemporary Challenge of St. John of the Cross

As well as continued reading of much that was on my last list. Looking forward to:

Orson Scott Card Sarah and Rebekah (Yes, I know, he's Mormon, but these are "common texts" a good place for finding common ground.)
R. Garcia y Robertson Knight Errant (time travel romance)
Michael Curtis Ford The Ten Thousand (A fictionalized account of the march of Xenophon's army after the Peloponnesian War.)
Ha Jin The Crazed
and others too numerous to list. By the time I get to even one of these, the hydra will have sprouted a hundred more heads.

Beauty and Art Over the

Beauty and Art

Over the past few days I have had these two prevailing concepts in mind as I have written. Such interest has led to discussion elsewhere on related matters that has been both vexing and quite profitable--vexing in that it takes so long to internalize and profitable in that I have begun to understand the theory of systems. My thoughts regarding beauty and art are yet incomplete--just forming the shadow of a surface--the vaguest appearance of outline. And it seems in proper order to first make some provisional stab at defining and understanding beauty.

In recent posts here and here and here, Dylan has posited a theory of beauty that started in a very appealing fashion. His original designation defined four types of beauty corresponding to four aspects of love. This kind of resolution has a wonderful parallelism and symmetry guaranteed to appeal to a mind with the interior landscape of my own (think The Pharmacist of Ampurdan in Search of Absolutely Nothing or any of the canvases of Yves Tanguy). However, there is also a part of me deeply suspicious of any such attempt--it suggest more the pattern-finding quality of the human mind than the actual reality of the nature of beauty. In subsequent discussion, Dylan further modifies this theory--his comments are worthy of your perusal. But the discussion of types, like the questionnaire that I had somewhat earlier, doesn't really get at the heart of what beauty is in a way that satisfactorily allows one to address the question of art and its quality. All of these raise questions about beauty, but provide no resolutions. Nor, for my purposes does the general intent of St. Thomas's definition--though truth to tell I have not explored that in all of its ramifications. Thus, I do not reject what he has to say, I cannot for I do not know it well enough, but the sense of what he has to say does not allow me to answer the question I have at heart--"How does one evaluate properly a piece of art?"

What I did find most interesting and fascinating is that there were some pieces on the questionnaire on which every respondent agreed. Also, interesting that the question of beauty rarely arises in the study of modern art. Ron at The 7 Habitus has gone so far as to say that no modern masterpieces are being written. I do not know if I wholly agree, but I do sympathize to a large extent.

So, this is a new beginning to my discussion in which I will look at the results of the questionnaire, those bits and pieces of St. Thomas that I have looked into, Dylan's provisional division, and other aspects to see if there can be a satisfactory definition of beauty.

Actually, that is untrue--I suppose I should admit to what my purpose is. You've already seen signs of it on my comments on the pieces of art and music that I have laid out. I have already drawn a conclusion regarding beauty, and I am seeking a way to work backward from the conclusion to see if a logical chain can be made to a reasonable definition. If not, the conclusion must be abandoned, but if so, we have a reasonable explanation of beauty.

So here is a provisional definition of beauty--beauty consists of that which is in some way pleasing to the senses and/or intellect, which acts as a definitive signpost pointing toward God, and in which both goodness and truth predominate. (This latter part because I suppose I must believe there is some aspect of good in all creation; however, I will not be swayed by the argument that this good is enough to make something beautiful--there must be more). I think I will find much in what Dylan is saying and in other comments that is compatible with this theory. Perhaps, too, there will be much that is not. There is part of me that looks toward revelation to let us know what beauty is, and another part that seeks to better understand so that it is not merely a subjective evaluation.

Strange how much of this grew out of the claim that "Latin is objectively more beautiful than English." Never know which hammer tap will loose the artesian spring.

Another Interesting Blog Ms. Huntley

Another Interesting Blog

Ms. Huntley attracted my attention by being the second person of my acquaintance to know of Mikrokosmos and to like it greatly. A person of such profound good taste certainly deserves our attention--visit Fructis Ventris her blogspot.

On Music, and Eventually, on

On Music, and Eventually, on the Sublime

Now, I will attempt to explain what I think is beautiful in the following pieces:
Debussy La Mer--Yes--Some have suggested that this piece is too onomatopoeic to be truly beautiful. But I ask, does the sea really sound anything at all like what Debussy has presented to us? Is it not that the glistening slides through tonalities and the rippling work on harp and strings have some to suggest the rise and fall of the sea? What I "hear" in this piece is actually synaesthesic--I hear the sound of the light rippling from the waves, the play of the light in the water and on the surface, sparkling and dark. I see the shallow bottom of a tropical lagoon where the ripples create interference patterns that play and divide up the sparkling sand. I do not hear the sea. But that is a personal impression. Ultimately, what makes this beautiful is that it calls me beyond myself. I can get lost in it, and becoming lost, focus my attention on higher things--on things more worthy of my attention--or rather, should I say, on Persons more worthy of my attention. Thus the sheer sound sensuality of the music coupled with tonalities that do not readily resolve and come to a stop, is suggestive of eternal things--eternal as the sea is not, but come close to being.

Schönberg Pierrot Lunaire--No--The apotheosis of nearly everything that dissuades me from the "New School" (now ancient) of atonality. The singer is at odds with the music in a very predictable, mathematically dictated way (although Schönberg was actually a slouch at this compared to his student Webern.) Nothing really invites the listener in, and while it might be fun to play with it in a sort of intellectual way, there is no satisfaction for anything other than the self. There is no invitation to leave oneself and look beyond.

Schönberg Verklarte Nacht--Yes--Included to show that Schönberg was capable of composing some extremely stirring and beautiful work. The title's piece means "Transfigured Night" and in fact, in the course of the piece the night is transfigured as is the listener. Once again, the music invites, practically builds a pathway for the listener to leave the sanctuary of self and move out into the beyond, into the Transcendence of Almighty God.

Hindemith Mathis der Mahler--Yes--As above, and perhaps even more so. Okay, I have to admit that this symphony, which is drawn from an Opera by Hindemith on the subject of Mathias Grünewald, a painter, has an appeal for me that goes far beyond the music itself. The work got Hindemith thrown out of Nazi Germany, and that in itself is a profound recommendation--although whether it would make a piece beautiful or not is speculative. But it does get at one criterion. Thus far, all of the selections have been "morally neutral." That is, there is nothing in the content that is or really could be morally offensive. In this piece, morality is brought to the forefront:

The opera Mathis der Maler, the most powerful statement of Hindemith’s political feelings, tells the story of Grünewald’s renunciation of his art in 1525. The painter joined the cause of the Seligenstadt peasants in the Peasant’s War, a short-lived revolt that followed close on the heels of the Lutheran Reformation. The opera and the symphony that is drawn from it are also closely tied to what may be Grünewald’s masterpiece, the altarpiece that he executed for St. Anthony’s church in Isenheim. Mathis’s struggles—especially his realization that, however beautiful it might be, his art does nothing to alleviate the suffering he sees around him—and his turn to social activism are a clear allegory to Hindemith’s own soul-searching.

The Symphony was completed some months before opera itself, and Furtwängler conducted the premiere in March of 1934, to a ecstatic audience—according to eyewitnesses, the ovation lasted 20 minutes. By this time, however, the Nazis had officially seized power in Germany, and the Party’s Kulturkammer was able to frustrate Hindemith’s plans to produce Mathis der Maler in Berlin during the 1934-35 opera season. The opera was banned because its subject matter (peasants rising against authority) and “ultra-modern” music were objectionable—Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda and “National Enlightenment,” denounced Hindemith as an “atonal noisemaker.” This censure of Hindemith and his music led directly to Furtwängler’s resignation and his open defiance of the Kulturkammer in a now-famous article in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. By 1935, conditions were no longer bearable or safe in Germany, and Hindemith left in self-imposed exile.

Source

A resounding recommendation if ever I saw one. So in this case, in addition to lovely music that is both pleasing and a glimpse of heaven, we have at roots a good and noble cause. The cause of the truth is not sufficient unto itself to make for beauty, but beauty can not exist in the absence of concomitant truth.

Strauss Also Sprache Zarathustra--No--For precisely the opposite reasons of the above. The piece is musically stunning--at the time, probably even shocking. But it has two points that remove it from the realm of beautiful, while still enticing. The first is the fault of the composer, the second, I admit, mere guilt by association. Richard Strauss based the music on the nihilistic and atheistic founder of the übermensch philosophy--Nietzsche. Richard Strauss was also one of the highly favored composers of the Nazi regime (guilt by association through no fault, that know of, of the composer).

Holst The Planets--Yes--Again, a piece that draws the listener out of him or herself. Quite varied, and the music from either Venus or Jupiter (I forget) is used for an absolutely stunning hymn. Others can probably better inform you on all of this, as the details have completely slipped my mind.

Webern Five Pieces for Small Orchestra Bonus question: did he really encode secrets in his music?--No--Webern's entire atonal output consists of 31 pieces totaling less than four hours in length, and were one to attempt to listen to them end-to-end as it were, one would emerge either a stark raving lunatic, or a mathematical wizard. From all reports the most seriously mathematical of the atonalists, his music has a rigorously dictated structure. So much so that one can find endless speculation on the internet about whether he used his dodecacaphony to encode messages as a spy for the Nazis.

Bartok Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta--Transcendantly yes--Explained, perhaps poorly before.

Rachmaninoff Variations on a Theme by Paganini--Yes--Powerful, moving, and interesting. To take a work by a person who prided himself on being one to the Progeny of the Devil and convert it into the magnificent, arresting, and ultimately satisfying work both beautiful and true to form.

Vaughn Williams The Lark Ascending--Yes--A life-long agnostic knew more of God than he gave himself credit for. Nearly every piece of music reveals the beauty of God's creation in astounding ways.

One of the themes you may have noted is that beauty cannot arise from mere pleasantness or even loveliness. Beauty must be accompanied by both goodness and truth. Now, it is possible for a work about morally neutral matters can be beautiful, but a work engaging morally repugnant sentiment can never be beautiful--simply be definition. Here I will not split the Thomistic hairs over the "amount" of goodness a thing may contain. Nazi philosophy may have contained a large amount of goodness for the economically oppressed and unjustly sanctioned German people--but whatever good it might contain is vastly outweighed in the balances by the evil incorporated into its very structure.

Thus, it would be my contention that for a work to be beautiful, it must be both pleasing to the senses and rightly informed in terms of content. A work of art has three main components--content, sensual appeal, and technical execution. Without all three of these no work can ever be considered beautiful. For example, Norman Rockwell's work is not particularly beautiful because instead of sensual appeal, it relies upon sentiment or nostalgic appeal.

Now, I also recognize that all of these statements are highly subjective, and others can produce quite good reasons why, even given my criteria, some of the works I have listed here are beautiful to them. So, there is additionally, a highly subjective element that is likely never to be agreed upon by all. This element must be transcendence. If the work lifts you out of yourself into the realm of contemplation of the glory of God, it is beautiful. (This may have been the thought behind one commenter's suggestion of the sublime.) This is the element that is likely to be different for ever person--but there are three grounds on which one can decide the beauty of a subject beyond this. For this reason, while the writing of de Sade may be technically proficient, if not excellent, its sensual appeal is more a sensuous appeal, and the content is morally repugnant. It is not possible for such a work to be considered beautiful.

Now, we can set up all manner of criteria to determine whether a work is morally repugnant, but I intend to stay with a simple "rules-based" approach. If Biblical Revelation and the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church teach that something is a sin that something is morally repugnant, otherwise, I suppose, one could assume that it is either neutral or good. I suppose from what I gathered in the conversation on "goodness" at Disputations, if there is no reprehensible element to override anything else, the object should probably be considered good--although to consider the sea "good" is rather like deciding whether a table is masculine or feminine in gender. I don't see it, but I leave it to the philosophers and dialecticians who can better understand all of these things.