Andy Warhol famously quipped, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” His appraisal of the fleeting nature of fame was mostly right. However, he said that before the advent of repeated episodes, re-run and syndicated series, reality TV, blogs, and social networking. Had he seen these, perhaps he’d have suggested “15 episodes”, “15 seasons”, “15 posts”, “to 15 people”, “15 words”, or “15 seconds at a time”.
I’ve been rather hesitant to say anything whatsoever about the recently released motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, which allows for more liberal use of the Tridentine mass (in its 1962 form). I figured I had little to say that wouldn’t be said by others with greater eloquence. However, in the last few days I’ve read a number of articles that repeat common myths regarding the Roman mass in both its older and newer forms, and they’ve annoyed me sufficiently to provoke me to write (Exhibit A, Exhibit B). Someone may have already written or will write a better correction. If anyone happens upon one, let your fellow readers know by leaving a comment.
I’m a gangster, I’m a straight up G.
The gangster life is the life for me!
Shooting people by day, selling drugs by night.
Being a gangster is hella tight.
– “I’m a Gangster” by Rappy McRapperson
Nerdcore rap cracks me up in general, but the above parody of gangster rap is one of my favorites. It’s also a nice companion piece to this Michelle Malkin op-ed. It’s too bad I don’t have a fresh quote from Bill Cosby to complete the hat trick. 😉
Let’s stipulate: I have no love for Don Imus, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. A pox on all their race-baiting houses.
Let’s also stipulate: The Rutgers women’s basketball team didn’t deserve to be disrespected as “nappy-headed hos.” No woman deserves that.
I agree with the athletes that Imus’s misogynist mockery was “deplorable, despicable and unconscionable.” And as I noted on Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor” this week, I believe top public officials and journalists who have appeared on Imus’s show should take responsibility for enabling Imus — and should disavow his longstanding invective.
But let’s take a breath now and look around. Is the Sharpton & Jackson Circus truly committed to cleaning up cultural pollution that demeans women and perpetuates racial epithets? Have you seen the Billboard Hot Rap Tracks chart this week?
Witnessing all the recent hubbub about new English mass translation that’s just been approved by US bishops and the ever-present tensions between rival Bible translators, I thought the following quite from Peter Berger’s The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion might provoke interesting discussion.
"The social world constitutes a nomos both objectively and subjectively. The objective nomos is given in the process of objectivation as such. the fact of language, even if taken by itself, can readily be seen as the imposition of order upon experience. Language nomizes by imposing differentiation and structure upon the ongoing flux of experience. As an item of experience is named, it is ipso facto, taken out of this flux and given stability as the entity so named. Language further provides a fundamental order of relationships by the addition of syntax and grammar to vocabulary. It is impossible to use language without participating in its order. Every empirical language may be said to constitute a nomos in the making, or, with equal validity, as the historical consequence of the nomizing activity of generations of men. The original nomizing act is to say that an item is this, and thus not that. As this original incorporation of the item into the order that includes other items is followed by sharper linguistic designations (the item is male and not female, singular and not plural, a noun and not a verb, and so forth), the nomizing act intends a comprehensive order of all items that may be linguistically objectivated, that is, intends a totalizing nomos.
What I primarily take from this is the importance of word choice for the recording and transmission of information, i.e., order. When we translate Scripture or liturgies to modern languages, we must be mindful of a few important questions.
- What sort of order did the original author(s) intend to impose with the words they chose?
- What sort of order do we wish to impose with the words we choose?
- If these orders do not match, why do they not, and how should that affect our translation efforts?
In response to a debate in the comments to my first investigative post about NFP, I’ve decided to query my readers for their opinions. Please consider answering these surveys. I’d like Catholics and non-Catholics alike to participate.