It’s pretty much inevitable that the end of the year inspires us to take stock of what we’ve done well, what we’ve done poorly, and what we’ve failed to do in the last year. I asked one of my readers to offer constructive criticism. Here’s the response [with links added by me].
My wife and I wish a blessed Christmas to everyone, and especially to regular readers
of this blog. Don’t forget there are still ten days left in the Christmas season.
In the midst of the so-called War on Christmas, it’s easy to forget that receiving
gifts and being merry are nice, but giving love and being thankful are far superior.
"…[T]he Mass is very much like the events of the Gospel itself. That is, in those events we saw ternal mysteries veiled under the inauspicious terms, not only of our world, but of the most unlikely crannies of our world. Nazareth: the ultimate small town. A stable: dung and straw for the child born to the purple. Crucifixion: the worst that our malice could arrange. And yet in all of these the eye of faith sees glory. It finds at these points what T.S. Elliot called ‘the point of intersection of the timeless with time’."
"Likewise with the Mass. To all intents and purposes, it is 8:00 A.M/ on Tuesday, June 13, A.D. 304, or A.D. 1995, in Lyons or Peoria. But we have stepped, the way the shepherds did, into the precincts of the eternal. No straw, no dung, no braying ass, that does not belong here. Belong here? Surely the mystery is to be perceived in spite of all that noisome stuff?"
"No. Belongs here. This is where, and how, the Most High prepared and set the scene for his advent. Let the straw stay; let the straw be acclaimed even, since in it all straw is touched with the dignity of proffering something to the Most High. If the asses are what they truly are, made by this Most High, then their very dung testifies to the odd and cyclic harmony that characterizes his creation. The Incarnate One will not draw fastitious skirts away from this that marks his beloved asses. No: he will be found, quite helpless, right here"
– Thomas Howard, On Being Catholic
, pp. 83-84
Fans of C.S. Lewis might enjoy this interview with his stepson, Douglas Gresham, did with WORD-FM talk show host Jerry Bowyer on 11/23/05.
As I was cleaning out old email, I found a comment Steven Nicoloso made regarding cursing. Since this topic was recently addressed here, I thought I'd share the comment.
"What I'd propose is a four-ary breakdown, a spectrum, of Dangerous Words, recognizing of course that even the strongest word is inherently weaker than the weakest meaning and intention."
"1) Objective Violation of the 2nd Commandment–vain use of God's name: YHWH, Jesus, Christ, maybe others, uttered either as a curse or a intentionally false oath. This is, I think, always a grave matter. I'd don't think I'd count the exclamation 'god' as a per se' violation here since that is not God's name."
"2) Cursing Proper–invoking deity or other holy thing or attribute in vain generally or with a specific eternal intention. Here we would find utterances such as god, goddamn and possibly hell, if the intent is to say dammit to hell. Possibly in this category we might find things like 'Holy Moly', but such utterances seem more nonsense than actual profanity. I guess if Moly was a real, unholy thing, then maybe. Dangerous words of categories (1) and (2) are both types of profanity proper. But type (2) fails to be obvectively grave, depending on the circumstances. Damning or wishing hell upon something detestible like, say, sin or heresy or a possibly rotten money-pit of a car or the pain of your thumb once hit by a hammer is not necessarily an evil, unjust, or vain desire. In some cases it is a positive good. Of course we should never wish, not even jokingly, damnation or hell on any person, so certain uses are definitely wrong. Type (2) Dangerous Words are still extremely dangerous and we should definitely not be in the habit of uttering them willy-nilly, just 'cause we feel like it."
"3) Obscenity Proper–these are words that refer to conjugal relations and associated body parts, having often or generally a lascivious connotation. Oddly two of these (less dangerous dangerous words) are among the 3 most taboo in the English language… one beginning with F and referring to copulation and the other beginning with C and referring to female sexual anatomy. Others here include 'd*ck', various erectile euphemisms, euphemisms of sexual position and exploit, &c., &c.. Sexuality is perhaps the richest soil for the development of slang in the English language (I suppose we should thank either the Victorians or the Puritans for that… perhaps both.) Use of words and themes in this category is dangerous, but sometimes called for. They should be used judiciously and precisely for their shock value and/or their fine ability to convey shades of meaning not readily offerred by other nouns or adjectives. Paul's angry reference to removal of the male member in Galatians falls under this category, I think."
"4) Mere Offensive Words–in this category are all the rest and run a gamut from silly (and perfectly innocent) euphemisms for excrement, urine and vomit, to much more potentially wicked terms such as racial slurs. With these words, it depends entirely upon the intent of the communication. Obviously to intend a racial slur is extremely wicked and extremely grave. To refer to a destable thing by some euphemism indicating excrement may be perfectly justified, even laudable in the right circumstances. St. Paul's reference (Philippians) to the fleshly things he valued in his former life as a Pharisee as skubalon ('sh*t') is an example of this kind of usage."