Le Resistance Catholique

Are YOU a traditionalist? (and some stuff about the SSPX)

2006-06-22T13:15:00.000-05:00

Recently, I've come to terms with the fact that I'm a traditionalist. I don't really think of myself as one, but apparently I fit the definition. Let me list a few things that describe traditionalists. The more of these you fit, the more likely you are to be a traditionalist. One thing, however, will not be an actual traditionalist. Try and guess which one it is.

1. Traditionalists hate folky guitar music in the liturgy.
2. Traditionalists also hate liturgical songs about the people there or with the people singing as God to themselves (ex. Here I Am, Lord)
3. Traditionalists like when altar boys and acolytes wear the cassock and surplice. They are also big fans of the deacon's dalmatic.
4. Traditionalists don't like altar boys in martial arts gear.
5. Traditionalists don't like altar girls.
6. Traditionalists like to use communion rails.
7. Traditionalists also like patins.
8. Traditionalists don't like EMHCs when they are unnecessary (which is most of the time).
9. Traditionalists like the altar to face east, or at least away from the people and to God.
10. Traditionalists like having the tabernacle behind the altar (so the altar can face God).
11. Traditionalists like good (in a Thomistic sense) art.
12. Traditionalists like Gregorian Chant.
13. Traditionalists like Sacred Polyphony.
14. Traditionalists like Latin.
15. Traditionalists think chapel veils are cool.
16. Traditionalists like the Tridentine Mass.
17. Traditionalists pray for the Universal Indult.
18. Traditionalists deny Vatican II and refuse to attend Novus Ordo Missae.

So what doesn't describe a traditionalist? Number 18. Traditionalists are submissive to papal authority. All the other things listed are in accord with the Catholic Church, including the Second Vatican Council.

Now, as a newfound traditionalist, I've noticed that progressives don't understand that "traditionalist" doesn't mean "schismatic." I can't count how many times I've been asked if the TLM I go to is run by the SSPX. Have people even heard of the Fraternity? It's doubtful, but I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with being thought of by some Catholics as somehow less Catholic because I love centuries-old Catholic practices. Anyways, I'll agree that some people in the SSPX are crazy. I sympathize with them a little, though, since we like the same stuff, but obedience is still key and the Society is disobedient. This must be what gives traditionalists a bad reputation. Funny how someone who loves a good thing can tear it down if he's not in line with Rome. Funny but true, and rightfully so. All I'm saying is traditionalists are Catholic, and the SSPX ironically doing more to kill the movement than they are to help it.

-rant completed-

DISCLAIMER: The "Are YOU a traditionalist?" list is unofficial and is in no way thought to be complete.

Darwinian Speciation

2006-04-20T15:54:00.000-05:00

The Hardy-Weinberg definition of evolution, part of the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and genetics, is a change in gene frequency over time. There are 4 forces which produce this evolution: natural selection, drift, mutation, and migration. Forces of nature, such as a particular genotype, weed out different genes through natural selection.

Example:
A population has a trait expressed by two alleles, R and T. Let's say a disease strikes the population and more strongly affects individuals with the T allele. Because of this, 100% of RR individuals survive to reproduce, 65% of RT individuals survive to reproduce, and 25% of TT individuals survive to reproduce. Over multiple generations, there is a high probability that the T allele will be lost from the population, meaning all the population would be RR. So the entire population evolves by shifting to a particular trait, but is still the same species. This is convergent evolution.

On the contrary, rare occurances such as genetic drift, mutation, or migration, could cause divergent evolution. So lets say 1 in 50,000 alleles mutates. Now let's say 1 in 10 (a liberal estimate) is actually a positive mutation. This new allele is W. So in an individual or two we see RW. Now, for divergent evolution to occur, this W must be able to defend against natural forces and have a higher survival rate than the RR gene. Over a LONG time, this W allele takes over, just like the R allele did. This same process happens in the majority of the genes of a species population and now, the idea is, it is a whole new species.

Final questions:
Is it really a new species, or just an extreme case of the same species? At what point would we claim it as a completely new species? There appears to be no defendable place. This cuts at the heart of Darwin's ideas, for he said that everyone knows what a species is but we can't really define it, almost as if we recognize the species in as much as it participates in the form of the species. But I digress.

My point is that evolution, however unlikely, is pretty awesome, if it works. There are too many "ifs" and random chances for it to mesh with the world around us. Basically, evolution is chaos in an ordered world. The idea of an ordered universe descended from chaos through chaos doesn't make much sense. So it appears that either there is something ordering evolution or the theory is not true. I maintain that through the seeming chaos, God directs the "undirected" causes of evolution (drift, mutation, migration). [Insert Aquinas' fifth way to prove the existence of God] Through the same unnoticable direction by which God hold the universe in existence, He also unnoticibly directs the forces of evolution.

Basically, I hold to the most evolutionist side of the intelligent design camp.

Catholic Pants

2006-04-20T15:48:00.000-05:00

I just want to let everyone know that I have ascended (or been assumed, I guess) to the next level of Catholicism. I went to mass this morning and, afterwards, noticed a tear in the left knee of my jeans. It was not there before mass so my hypothesis is that the hole was caused by constant wear and tear from kneeling during mass. I will cherish these jeans eternally.

Quote of the Day!

2006-04-09T20:10:00.000-05:00

Dublin, Ireland is celebrating the 100th birthday of Samuel Beckett, author of such nihilistic plays as Waiting for Godot and Endgame. The below is an excerpt from a Yahoo! news item:

[Samuel] Beckett has even been lauded by the Irish republic's answer to royalty - U2 lead singer Bono. "I'm a fan," Bono said at the festival's Dublin Castle launch, revealing that he'd once given Beckett a copy of U2's 1985 album, "The Unforgettable Fire." Bono said he often did not understand Beckett's work, "but I have enjoyed not knowing. He blew my mind, that is all I can say."

Ignorance is strength...

For what it's worth, I have enjoyed Beckett's plays, although I diagree with him on practically everything.

The Irrationality of Athiesm

2006-04-08T08:12:00.000-05:00

This is from our friend Ben. He has something to say.

--
How many times have we been treated to atheistic commentary on religion as a "disease"? How many times have atheists in the media described religion as "irrational" and "anti-intellectual" and "evil"? Again and again, this crowd asserts the non-existence of God and proclaims the status of humans as "intelligent animals." Well, some appear to be more intelligent than others, and here's one reason why:

If these people truly had the courage of their convictions, then they would cease lambasting religion, because they would realize that religion is a behavior. We "intelligent animals" display many behaviors, and without God as a cause, all of our behaviors must be analyzed in the
same fashion as all animal behaviors - natural responses to the pressures of the environment.

Raccoons wash their food; badgers don't. Bowerbirds build complex nests; cuckoos don't. I go to Church; Richard Dawkins doesn't. To the atheist and strict Darwinist, behaviors carry no moral component. I don't happen to reproduce by laying eggs inside the body of another creature, nor do I kill my mate at some point in our courtship ritual - but if I did, to the atheist, such a behavior should be neither right nor wrong. It would simply exist, a natural response of animals to the pressure imposed upon them by the randomly produced environment.

So why do some atheists object so strongly to the practice of religion? Might they just as reasonably object to the dances of bees and songs of birds? I think so. It is because we do not always immediately understand the natural purpose of animal behavior that it exists as a field of study. If the lion is observed killing lion cubs, behaviorists relying on strict Darwinism do not call the lion "evil", and if several lions display the same behavior, the Darwinists do not presume it is a case of mass delusion affecting these lions. Instead, they study the behavior to find its natural cause and purpose. For certain they do not object to the behavior itself. Consider an op-ed piece written to decry infanticide among lions. Non-sensical, eh?

When human behavior is the topic, however, all such objectivity is lost. People who claim to believe in a universe governed by random chance in which the natural world of both physiologies and behaviors arises through the action of this randomness - these same people now attach a moral dimension to behaviors, if they are human. Certain things are "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", despite the obvious fact that if human beings are mere animals, the products of evolution, our behaviors are no more right nor wrong than the behaviors of any other organism.

Consider, if you will, the war between the red ant and the black ant. Would we think it odd if the Darwinistic biologist took sides? Of course. Why then, do we not find it terribly odd if the biologist chooses sides in a human war? To him, both are natural, the competition between organisms for resources-or at least, they should be. It seems to me that it is atheists, especially those who are constantly invoking Darwin, who are often irrational when they comment on human activites, especially religion. For someone who professes to believe in the random origins and complete lack of meaning of the universe and life to simultaneously judge some human behaviors "right" or "wrong" seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy.

It's A Hard Knox Life...

2006-04-05T00:38:00.000-05:00

Ronald Knox is so cool. On Saturday, I picked up a 1000-page collection of "Pastoral and Occasional Sermons" which cover everything from the Sermon on the Mount and meditations on the Cross of Christ to seasonal sermons, sermons on the feasts of various English martyrs, and panegyrics following the deaths of GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc.

An excerpt from his homily "What Bishops are For", given on September 8, 1955, the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, at the installation Mass of J.D. Scanlan as Bishop of Motherwell.

Aram was the father of Aminidab, Aminidab of Naasson, Naasson of Salmon. -Mt 1:4

A somewhat uninspiring text, you will complain, taken from a somewhat uninspiring gospel. Here are we, gathered in this cathedral town, so beautifully named after Our Lady's well; it is Our Lady's birthday, and we are giving her a birthday present by presenting a bishop to her vacant See. And as we listen to the deacon's chant, proclaiming the words of life, what rewards us? Forty-odd names from the Old Testament, mostly people we have never heard of. Could not the liturgy have offered a more resonant challenge to our devotion?

That is only a surface view. If we stand back from the picture, forget the details and try to capture the general effect,, we shall see what a gracious effect it is; this dull genealogy bears witness that our Lord was truly Man. All very well for St. John to start his Gospel, "At the beginning of time the Word already was"; but if that had been the whole truth there would have been no Incarnation, and no redemption. No, St. Matthew insists, when our Lord came to Earth, he came as a member of a human family;...

And no let us notice another consideration which arises out of this prosaic list of names. I mean, its continuity. This genealogical table runs right across the expanse of human history, like a majestic river that nourishes, and is nourished by, the plain. And just as such a river will pass through alternations of scenery, now between frowning hills and now across flat marshy levels, so this most important pedigree in all history has its ups and downs, its alternations. ...

And there is a third point to notice, before we finish our meditation on these olpening verses of Matthew. The unimportant people get their mention quite as much as the important ones. David and Solomon and Zorobabel, they re all just items in the catalogue, there is no thumb-nail biography to tell us who they were and what they did. They stand side by side with Aram and Aminidab and Naasson and Salmon, mere nobodies as far as history is concerned. As if almighty God were determined to show that it didn't matter for his purposes whether the people he chose to be our Lord's ancestors were men of fine natural abilities, men of commanding personality, or not. ... [H]e picks on just anybody, and makes him into the kind of instrument he wants them to be. ...

Have I forgotten that we are enthroning a bishop? ... No, all that I've been saying has a relevance and importance of its own, if we are to understand what bishops are like, and what bishops are for. ... May we just take those three points in reverse order...and see how they apply to the office of the episcopte? "By arms, by force, nothing canst thou; my spirit is all, says the Lord of hosts"; a bishop is and will be what God makes him; that and nothing else. He is, above all, a link in a chain; he is part of the universal episcopate, and part, therefore, of the Church's continuity. And he is our father in God. ...

A lovely Scriptural introduction to a wonderful sermon on what a bishop is. Having read only a few of Knox's commanding sermons (if he delivered them with even half the force of his writing, he would have been amazing to listen to), I already think he should be required study in all homiletics classes. What a joy to read; I only wish I could have heard him in person.

Fullness of Truth

2006-04-04T18:58:00.000-05:00

I was recently at the Fullness of Truth Conference in Corpus Christi. I can only say that it was amazing. Fr. Corapi spoke about the current spiritual war going on all over the world. He spoke as always very bluntly and with a style only he has. Fr. Pacwa gave some amazing talks on Mary and the Eucharist. He spoke about Mary recieving the Eucharist in the early days of the Church. The thought of our Lady recieving into her what she once carried in her womb was amazing and an image i had never really concidered. I was able to spend an evening with Fr. Pacwa and in the course of one dinner was completely taken aback by him. He really is an inpirational speaker and homilist. There were other speakers there as well, Stephen Ray, Rosalind Moss, and Carl Orson were some of the speakers I had the pleasure of listening to. I hope if you haven't been to the Fullness of Truth Conference you go. I know there will be a summer conference in San Antonio.

One Year Anniversary

2006-04-03T20:29:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of Pope John Paul II death. May he intercede for us while we struggle on our journey toward the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Yo I'm Matt

2006-03-28T13:22:00.000-06:00

Hello my name is Matt and I'm a history major at the University of Texas or as our friend Ben likes to call the wasteland. Like my friends I'm interested in Catholicism especially the History of the Church. I recently coordinated a Mission Trip to Mexico with the University Catholic Center. I hope i can contribute something to this blog, although my friends are much more learned than I when it comes to theology.

Acolyte!

2006-03-28T13:06:00.000-06:00

After some e-mails back and forth with my ordinary in San Antonio, I will be instituted as an acolyte some time this summer. Woo hoo!

Confirmation Age

2006-03-23T21:23:00.000-06:00

The Most Reverend Alvaro Corrada, SJ, Bishop of Tyler, TX, released a pastoral letter last October asking that the Confirmation be adminstered before the first reception of the Holy Eucharist. So now, in that diocese, all baptized children of age 8, just after the age of reason, are confirmed and then receive Communion.

The appropriate age for Confirmation is a strange issue. "F0r centuries, Latin custon has indicated "the age of discretion" as the reference point for receiving Confirmation" (CCC 1307). However, many Catholic parishes have moved the age back, confirming Catholics at ages 12, 16, even 17 (as it was in my case). It seems, however, that this has no historical or theological value, but instead is a social custom that does not recognize the point of the Sacrament itself.

Confirmation is on of the three Sacraments of Initiation (along with Baptism and Eucharist) and is "necessary for the completion of baptismal grace" (CCC 1285). During the Secong Vatican Council, the Church said that the baptized "are more perfectly bound to the Church by the sacrament of Confirmation, and the Holy Spirit endows them with special strength so that they are more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith, both by word and by deed, as true witnesses of Christ" (Lumen Gentium 11). So the Sacraments of Initiation work in a particular order: the new Catholic is joined to the body of Christ and washed of his sin (Baptism), strengthened to live out the call to holiness and bound more closely to Christ's pilgrim Church (Confirmation), and joined to Christ himself (Eucharist). Together, the three Sacraments present a great combination for the Catholic to experience, a sacramental grand slam if you will. Thus, theologically speaking, it makes most sense to administer Confirmation at the age of reason/discretion and before reception of the Eucharist, allowing the person to be fully bound to the Church when practicing the Sacramental life in the Eucharist and Reconciliation.

It appears that the early Church both baptized and confirmed infants at the same time. When the bishop could no longer baptize all Christians, the priest was delegated to distribute the sacrament more regularly. In the East, the two Sacraments remained a "double Sacrament," while in the West, the priest baptized, and Confirmation was delayed to the age of reason so the bishop could complete the "double Sacrament" (CCC 1290-1). It was only after the reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation that the catechumen received the Eucharist. There is a historical precedent within the traditions of the Church to celebrate these Sacraments in that order.

It seems that the reason for pushing the age of Confirmation to the mid-teen years is merely a social cause. My Confirmation at age 17 provided a convenient "now-you-are-a-man" moment. It is a mark on the path to social maturity. If not that, Confirmation becomes the young Catholic's chance to "decide for himself" and, in some way, validate his infant baptism. This practice, however, demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Sacrament. The Catechism tells us that "[a]lthough Confirmation is sometimes called the "sacrament of Christian maturity," we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election, and does not need "ratification" to become effective" (CCC 1308). Confirmation is not a milemarker for adulthood, but is the reception of a grace needed to become a mature adult. It is not a ratification of Baptism, but a completion of it.

It appears that the sacrament of Confirmation should be placed at the age of reason/discretion, both for the spiritual fruits we witness theologically and for the maintenance of the tradition of the Church. For these reasons, I applaud the decision of Bishop Corrada and hope other bishops will follow in suit.

Pope-ular Physics

2006-03-22T09:48:00.000-06:00

Inspired from a discussion over lunch yesterday about antipopes.

NEW ATOMIC PARTICLE DISCOVERED

ROME--Researchers have recently discovered a unique particle in the subatomic structure of popes, and they think that this could have a large impact on current metaphysical theories. The new particle discovered, which is tentatively called a "pope-on", or "popon", is thought to be the locus of papal infallibility, from which popes derive their power to wield authority on issues of faith and morality.

"The discovery of the popon blows away current theories popularized by leading scientists," lead researcher Albert von Magnus said. "Some, such as Hans Kung, had once thought that a particle such as this might exist in every human being, but so far, after thousands of tests, only the current Pope, Benedict XVI, exhibits these peculiar little particles." Magnus indicated that they are also testing the body of the late John Paul II for residues of the popon, although they believe that its high instability makes it improbable that anything will be discovered. "The popon fissions into its constitutive quarks very rapidly upon leaving the body of the current Pope. And it may not long reside in the bodies of dead popes as well," Magnus said.

Kung himself has considered its discovery amazing, but remains hopeful that identical or similar particles may be found in other leading religious figures. "I still think it highly possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury has an episcopon in his atoms. And the Dalai Lama must know much about particle physics when he speaks of 'the Buddha within,' ", Kung said in a statement released yesterday afternoon.

Popons were found circling the nucleus of atoms in the pope's body. They do so much closer than any elctron, which has helped keep it hidden from view until now.

Followup studies will now focus on the antipopon, which is thought to reside in the atomic structure of antipopes. However, because the few antipopes currently living refuse to submit themselves for examination, the existence of the antipopon cannot yet be confirmed. It has been thought that should a popon and antipopon collide, they would annihilate each other, but this has not yet happened in history because popons and antipopons, when in the presence of each other, are each thought to issue "anathema rays" which keep the other from approaching. This phenomenon has been noted in history several times.

Who is Eric?

2006-03-21T20:36:00.000-06:00

Well, I will introduce myself to probably only Jake and Josh who already know me. My name is Eric, and I am Theology and Catechetics major at Franciscan University in Steubenville Ohio. My interests are the Liturgy, Vatican II, catechesis, and random nonsense. I hope I can contribute something to this blog, so I can keep my name on the list of contributors. I do whatever I can do to keep the boss happy.

Josh's introduction

2006-03-20T15:31:00.000-06:00

I guess I will go ahead and introduce myself before I post anything else.

My name is Josh, and I attend the University of Dallas where I am majoring in Undeclared. My interests include Rosaries, the Knights Templar, poetry, philosophy, Gregorian Chant, Saints that were studs (i.e. St. Simon the Zealot, and St. John Vianney, all St. Francises), folk music, and the Mass.

Now that you all know me so well, I will begin to post here and there.

St Joseph

2006-03-18T15:11:00.000-06:00

The history of devotion to St Joseph is one of the more surprising in the annals of Church history. In contrast to Marian devotions, which began early and often and have been a hallmarkof the Catholic Church throughout its life, devotion to St. Joseph, now recognized as the patron of the universal Church, had a slow start and a checkered past. And by slow, I mean that the first church dedicated to St Joseph was built in Bologna...in 1129.

It seems that the Eastern Church had always maintained a devotion to Joseph, as seen in some of the Patristic writings. But the Western church was slow to develop a cult to Joseph. Benedict XIV indicates that it was the Carmelites in the Middle Ages who first brought the cult to the West. The Council of Constance accepted the Office for the Espousals of Joseph in 1414, and it was not until Sixtus IV, who reigned 1471-1484, that the Feast of St. Joseph was instituted on March 19 in the Roman calendar, and even then only as a festum simplex. And it wasn't until 1726 that Benedict XIII inserted Joseph into the Litany of Saints.

But devotion to St. Joseph grew tremendously from the 18th century onwards, particularly among the working class. This is because Joseph came to be seen as the model husband and father, who protected and supplied for Mary and the Christ-child. Surely, God would not choose as his fatherly protector a man who would neglect his duties to family, faith, and work. And Joseph the carpenter came to be a model for hard work, indeed, the model for sanctifying your daily life and routine to please God. And as can be seen by the growth and influence of Opus Dei, this image of Joseph, the hard-working, responsible caretaker who celebrated the mystery of God in his everyday life, has endured and will continue to endure as the lasting image of Christian work and Christian masculinity.

Have a Very Meaty St. Patrick's Day

2006-03-16T12:08:00.000-06:00

Just read in the Houston Chronicle that Archbishop DiNardo has granted a dispensation to eat your corned beef tomorrow in the Houston area. Spend a different day in abstinence and celevrate your (not-so-)Irish roots!

Fun With Philemon

2006-03-14T17:14:00.000-06:00

For as it was shown how spiritual prelates relate to their subjects, so here [Paul] shows how temporal masters should relate to their temporal servants, and how the faithful servant to his master.
~St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Preface to his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Philemon

Philemon is unique in the Bible as a private letter written by Paul to Philemon, regarding in particular the reception of the runaway slave Onesimus. Because of its short, direct nature and concern with slaves and masters, the traditional interpretation of it has been as an insight into Paul's thoughts regarding slavery and the inherent dignity in every person. This is indeed a good reading of the letter, and I by no means intend to replace it here. By I would like to suggest another possible reading of the letter, a spiritual one which applies to my life and to many others as well.

The historical background for the letter is as follows: Philemon was a Christian convert and citizen of Colossae whose house was used as a place of worship by the Colossian converts. He probably met Paul while staying in Ephesus and was converted there before returning to Colossae. Tradition places him as the first bishop of Colossae, and he along with Onesimus were martyred in the general persecution under Nero. The particular concern of the letter is with regards to Onesimus, a slave of Philemon who ran away, was converted by St. Paul, and then was sent back to Philemon with Paul's blessing.

The temporal matters dealt with in the letter have been discussed by the interpreters and exegetes, and it suffices to say here that it is with regards to slaves and masters. But the point I would like to raise is what is revealed in the letter when we read it in a spiritual sense with Christ as our master, one's self as the slave, and the Church taking the role of Paul as interceder and commissioner. If read like this, Paul's letter to Philemon can be seen as the perfect advice for the treatment of the revert and how the revert should approach his return to Catholic life.

Specifically, the revert asks Christ, through the Church, to accept himself back as a slave, but not only as slave but as someone "useful both to you and to me." The revert is now useful to Christ as a follower and disciple, and to the Church as a foot soldier in whatever manner he is needed. And for the revert, there is this consolation for his former life: "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good - no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." The Church then commissions the revert to return to Christ and then, with overtones of "Ecclesia supplex", asks that "If he [the revert] has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me."

There are other little kernels of truth and various connections that can be made here, but I encourage you to find them yourself. I think this reading can give Philemon some more exposure and thought that has generally been given it in the eyes of the faithful.

The Purpose of Animals

2006-03-13T01:33:00.000-06:00

The Donkey

When fishes flew and forests walked
And figs grew upon thorn,
Some moment when the moon was blood
Then surely I was born.

With monstrous head and sickening cry
And ears like errant wings,
The devil's walking parody
On all four-footed things.

The tattered outlaw of the earth,
Of ancient crooked will;
Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb,
I keep my secret still.

All animals, I believe, have their purpose here on Earth. And, of course, man was given them to gaurd before Adam screwed it all up for us in Eden. (That's okay, we forgive him yet. There were more wondrous things to come...) Jewish thought, and picked up in Catholic theology, shows that the animals fell as well when man fell. But they all had, and still have, their original purpose. The sheep shows our our relation to God, the need of a saving Shepherd. The dog shows us our loyalty to Him (as Ben once put it, we must all be "domesticated to God"...stop kicking, biting, clawing, scratching...). One can even imagine the ferocity of the bear shows us an infinitely small yet infintely understandable image of God's wrath should we so wrongly decide to tick Him off without begging for forgiveness.

But some animals are more difficult to figure out. Chesterton found the answer for the donkey, which lies in italics at the bottom of this entry when the introductory verses are concluded. And perhaps my brother found the answer to the great mystery of the tapeworm, when he so keenly noted that, like the Holy Spirit, "it lives within you."Still, there are some animals that are simply inscrutable. The ant, for example, is simply difficult to know. Is it there to show us that hard work and effort can save ourselves? Or are they simply a cosmic practical joke, God's way of saying, "Look, animals get along together better than you silly humans! Wake up!" And there's the sloth; it's very name is a Deadly Sin. I think either Adam or the 19th-century naturalists made a mistake there somewhere. And lastly, there's the platypus. I'm still waiting on any kind of sane explanation of the platypus.

But each animal, I am convinced, has it's imprint from God, the simple, indelible mark of Creation. God made them for some reason, to help us in some, often undetermined manner to lead us toward Him. Perhaps simply their existence should point the way to their Creator. For surely, there is no other reason for the natural beauty of the butterfly than to point us toward the Heavenly beauty of God.

Fools! For I also had my hour;
One far fierce hour and sweet:
There was a shout about my ears,
And palms before my feet.

--G.K. Chesterton

So, Who the Heck Are We?

2006-03-13T00:49:00.000-06:00

Good question.

We are six Catholic friends from the Texas Hill Country. One is based there as RCIA director; the rest of us are spread out across the country at various universities. We come together on breaks for bull sessions (which we call "Le Resistance") ranging anywhere from Darwin to Aquinas' philosophy of being to random stories of Catholic fun and goofiness. This is hoped to be a place where we can post random thoughts on Catholic theology and fun.

A short intro for myself (the others will introduce themselves as they want to):

I'm a junior at Rice University and active in the Catholic Student Association there. My interests include liturgy, art, and architecture; philosophy; and history.