A tip o' the hat to John Jansen who found this first.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Ex-Voto de 1662
On my one visit to Paris I set aside a whole day to see the Louvre. Wife-Mate and Pumpkin accompanied me in the morning, but in the afternoon they went shopping and left me with 6-month-old Pod-Man to see the more obscure galleries. As you go up from floor to floor, the ceilings get lower, the paintings smaller, and the artists more obscure. I was probably on the third floor when I stumbled upon this painting tucked away in a section full of the court painters of the Seventeenth Century.
I stopped absolutely dumb-struck: this painting was obviously about a miracle! I was touched to the core by how immediate, profoundly, and clearly this came to me. Unfortunately, when you get that far from the touristy first floor, all of the signs are in French, but, just the same, I pulled out my notebook and wrote down: Ex-Voto de 1662 / Philippe de Champaigne.
When I got home, I checked it out, and Ex-Voto de 1662 is indeed a votive offering (or ex-voto) by the painter Philippe de Champaigne which depicts the miraculous cure of his daughter that occurred at the Port-Royal de Paris Cistercian convent. In the painting, a ray of light illuminates Mother-Superior Agnès Arnauld, who experienced on the ninth day of her novena for Champaigne's daughter, Sister Catherine Ste. Suzanne, the hope that a cure would come for Sister Catherine. Catherine (seated, praying) was the painter's only surviving child, and had been suffering from a paralyzing illness. Until that point, prayer and medical treatments ("potions, baths, unctions, and thirty bleedings") had proven futile. After the Mother-Superior's novena, Sister Catherine soon attempted to walk, and found herself increasingly mobile; the illness no longer seemed present.
The painting includes a Latin inscription on the wall on the left of the painting. Neither the text nor the lettering were Champaigne's work.
The inscription, addressed to Christ, tells that Sister Catherine suffered for 14 months from a high fever and that half her body was paralyzed. She prayed with Mother Agnès and her health was restored, and again she offered herself to Christ. Champaigne offers the painting as a testament to this miracle and to express his joy.
This is one of the most amazing works of art that I have ever seen. Even reproductions, which do not ever capture the supernatural luminosity of the actual painting, never fail to touch me deeply. It reminds us always to trust in God's mercy and to renounce our attachment to worldly things.
I stopped absolutely dumb-struck: this painting was obviously about a miracle! I was touched to the core by how immediate, profoundly, and clearly this came to me. Unfortunately, when you get that far from the touristy first floor, all of the signs are in French, but, just the same, I pulled out my notebook and wrote down: Ex-Voto de 1662 / Philippe de Champaigne.
When I got home, I checked it out, and Ex-Voto de 1662 is indeed a votive offering (or ex-voto) by the painter Philippe de Champaigne which depicts the miraculous cure of his daughter that occurred at the Port-Royal de Paris Cistercian convent. In the painting, a ray of light illuminates Mother-Superior Agnès Arnauld, who experienced on the ninth day of her novena for Champaigne's daughter, Sister Catherine Ste. Suzanne, the hope that a cure would come for Sister Catherine. Catherine (seated, praying) was the painter's only surviving child, and had been suffering from a paralyzing illness. Until that point, prayer and medical treatments ("potions, baths, unctions, and thirty bleedings") had proven futile. After the Mother-Superior's novena, Sister Catherine soon attempted to walk, and found herself increasingly mobile; the illness no longer seemed present.
The painting includes a Latin inscription on the wall on the left of the painting. Neither the text nor the lettering were Champaigne's work.
CHRISTO VNI MEDICO
ANIMARVM ET CORPORVM
SOROR CATHARINA SVSANNA DE
CHAMPAIGNE POST FEBREM 14 MENSI
VM CONTVMACIA ET MAGNITVDINE
SYMPTOMATVM MEDICIS FORMIDATAM
INTERCEPTO MOTV DIMIDII FERE COR
PORIS NATVRA IAM FATISCENTE MEDICIS
CEDENTIBVS IVNCTIS CVM MATRE
CATHARINA AGNETE PRECIBVS PVNCTO
TEMPORIS PERFECTAM SANITATEM
CONSECVTA SE ITERVM OFFERT.
PHILLIPVS DE CHAMPAIGNE HANC
IMAGINEM TANTI MIRACVLI ET
LAETITAE SVAE TESTEM
APPOSVT
AO 1662
The inscription, addressed to Christ, tells that Sister Catherine suffered for 14 months from a high fever and that half her body was paralyzed. She prayed with Mother Agnès and her health was restored, and again she offered herself to Christ. Champaigne offers the painting as a testament to this miracle and to express his joy.
This is one of the most amazing works of art that I have ever seen. Even reproductions, which do not ever capture the supernatural luminosity of the actual painting, never fail to touch me deeply. It reminds us always to trust in God's mercy and to renounce our attachment to worldly things.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
A Word of Advice to Pro-Aborts
Outside of church, most people I know are “Pro-Choice” and, because I’m pretty left on most issues, they simply assume that I am too. My church teaches that life begins at conception and, as I am very earnest about my faith and my duty to God, I accept this teaching. Now, as I am a good citizen I am interested in politics and, as I am intellectually honest, I will listen to all sides of an issue with an open mind. In the spirit of being helpful, and in furthering better political debate, I’m going to offer Pro-Aborts a little advice on how to try to change people’s minds on this issue.
1] Until You Prove Otherwise, The Issue Is Murder.
Just saying, “I don’t think a blob of tissue is a person” doesn’t really do much to change my mind. Go on, make a case here. Draw the line in the sand and defend it. When does life begin? Give me some reasons. You just might be able to defend the notion that life begins at quickening, why don’t you try? But just pretending that the things pregnant women carry around in their bellies aren’t babies isn’t really an argument.
2] The Issue Isn’t Choice As Long As It Is Murder.
Frequently, I hear pro-aborts say things like: “If you’re against abortion, then don’t have one,” or “I trust women to make their own choices about abortion.” Let’s just go back to the idea (still not dis-proven) that abortion is murder and look at those statements again:
— “If you’re against murder, then don’t kill anyone.”
— “I trust women to make their own choices about murder.”
Plainly, these statements are beyond nonsensical and well into being idiotic. I think murder should be illegal, not because I don’t wish to commit it (I do, send for my proposed “hit list”), but because I do not wish to see myself nor my family murdered. Similarly, I don’t trust anyone to “make their own choices” about murder.
3] The Responsibility For All Of Those “Unwanted” Babies Belongs To Their Parents, Not To Society, Nor To Pro-lifers Personally.
Many is the time that I have heard pro-aborts say “Well, if those anti-choice people are so concerned about all of those babies, then why don’t they adopt them,” and the answer is, they do. I personally know a family of seventeen, most of them adopted, three of them adoptees with Down’s Syndrome. Go to my parish and it’s not hard to spot a few of these families, because they are the ones with black and white children sitting together in the pews. Furthermore, these are couples adopting American babies (with all of their problems of crack addiction, low birth weight, and pre-natal neglect), unlike the Yuppies who go overseas to get a “healthy baby.”
Secondly, linking “support for single moms” to abortion is a red herring. The idea that people should take care of themselves and the “problems” they have made for themselves without expecting government assistance is a perfectly defensible moral position. Everyone knows where babies come from, everyone knows how to avoid having them, and there’s no hypocrisy in saying that murder is not a legitimate way of avoiding parental responsibility.
4] There Is No Equating Abortion With The Death Penalty.
“If these anti-choice people are so ‘pro-life,’ then why do they favor the death penalty; isn’t that killing too?” Well — maybe because murderers are guilty and babies are innocent? Is it really that tough to see the difference? I don’t favor the death penalty, but I have no trouble seeing this distinction. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to come up with a plausible moral justification for a system that protects the guilty and slaughters the innocent.
5] Abortion Is A Woman’s Issue And Men Shouldn’t Have Any Say In It.
Kind of like saying spousal abuse is a man’s issue, isn’t it? I mean — shouldn’t we trust men to make their own choices about beating their wives? If you’re against spousal abuse, then don’t do it.
Or is injustice a human issue?
6] You Can Be A Good Catholic And Be “Pro-Choice.”
Saying “I know plenty of good Catholics who are pro-choice” is about on par with saying “I know plenty of good vegetarians who eat steak.” Church teaching is very clear on this and, once you deviate you have ceased to be Catholic. (Sorry.)
7] Religion Should Be Kept Out Of Politics.
Agreed! The purpose of government is to maintain public order by regulation of conduct, not thought or belief.
The nature of the Trinity, the matter of the Real Presence, or the validity of Apostolic Succession are religious questions that are rightly left to the individual conscience.
Murder, however, is a matter of conduct and thus well within the purview of government.
So — there you have it! Just change my mind on abortion being murder and then we can talk about all that other stuff.
1] Until You Prove Otherwise, The Issue Is Murder.
Just saying, “I don’t think a blob of tissue is a person” doesn’t really do much to change my mind. Go on, make a case here. Draw the line in the sand and defend it. When does life begin? Give me some reasons. You just might be able to defend the notion that life begins at quickening, why don’t you try? But just pretending that the things pregnant women carry around in their bellies aren’t babies isn’t really an argument.
2] The Issue Isn’t Choice As Long As It Is Murder.
Frequently, I hear pro-aborts say things like: “If you’re against abortion, then don’t have one,” or “I trust women to make their own choices about abortion.” Let’s just go back to the idea (still not dis-proven) that abortion is murder and look at those statements again:
— “If you’re against murder, then don’t kill anyone.”
— “I trust women to make their own choices about murder.”
Plainly, these statements are beyond nonsensical and well into being idiotic. I think murder should be illegal, not because I don’t wish to commit it (I do, send for my proposed “hit list”), but because I do not wish to see myself nor my family murdered. Similarly, I don’t trust anyone to “make their own choices” about murder.
3] The Responsibility For All Of Those “Unwanted” Babies Belongs To Their Parents, Not To Society, Nor To Pro-lifers Personally.
Many is the time that I have heard pro-aborts say “Well, if those anti-choice people are so concerned about all of those babies, then why don’t they adopt them,” and the answer is, they do. I personally know a family of seventeen, most of them adopted, three of them adoptees with Down’s Syndrome. Go to my parish and it’s not hard to spot a few of these families, because they are the ones with black and white children sitting together in the pews. Furthermore, these are couples adopting American babies (with all of their problems of crack addiction, low birth weight, and pre-natal neglect), unlike the Yuppies who go overseas to get a “healthy baby.”
Secondly, linking “support for single moms” to abortion is a red herring. The idea that people should take care of themselves and the “problems” they have made for themselves without expecting government assistance is a perfectly defensible moral position. Everyone knows where babies come from, everyone knows how to avoid having them, and there’s no hypocrisy in saying that murder is not a legitimate way of avoiding parental responsibility.
4] There Is No Equating Abortion With The Death Penalty.
“If these anti-choice people are so ‘pro-life,’ then why do they favor the death penalty; isn’t that killing too?” Well — maybe because murderers are guilty and babies are innocent? Is it really that tough to see the difference? I don’t favor the death penalty, but I have no trouble seeing this distinction. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to come up with a plausible moral justification for a system that protects the guilty and slaughters the innocent.
5] Abortion Is A Woman’s Issue And Men Shouldn’t Have Any Say In It.
Kind of like saying spousal abuse is a man’s issue, isn’t it? I mean — shouldn’t we trust men to make their own choices about beating their wives? If you’re against spousal abuse, then don’t do it.
Or is injustice a human issue?
6] You Can Be A Good Catholic And Be “Pro-Choice.”
Saying “I know plenty of good Catholics who are pro-choice” is about on par with saying “I know plenty of good vegetarians who eat steak.” Church teaching is very clear on this and, once you deviate you have ceased to be Catholic. (Sorry.)
7] Religion Should Be Kept Out Of Politics.
Agreed! The purpose of government is to maintain public order by regulation of conduct, not thought or belief.
The nature of the Trinity, the matter of the Real Presence, or the validity of Apostolic Succession are religious questions that are rightly left to the individual conscience.
Murder, however, is a matter of conduct and thus well within the purview of government.
So — there you have it! Just change my mind on abortion being murder and then we can talk about all that other stuff.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
My Best Friend
My best friend got married last week.
When I met her some five years ago, she was the friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend, totally secular, and a man-hating feminist. Since then she has found God, become Catholic, converted a nice fellow to Catholicism, and married him.
You cannot begin to understand how happy I am for her.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Can there be any doubt at this late date?
“…a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner who he should surround with care and affection.”
— Pope Paul VI,
Humanæ Vitæ
Humanæ Vitæ
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Sin of Presumption
I would like to begin with four examples:
What’s going on here is a sin we don’t often think of: the sin of presumption. When we act on assumptions about other people’s intentions and motivations we fall into venal sin even if these assumptions are correct. Presumption is a sin against charity when we assume the worst of people and at this point becomes a mortal sin. This is a tricky situation, because we often need to act upon assumptions and are not in a position to discern the truth. Sure I tell my kids to keep away from strangers, and yeah my guard is up whenever I’m approached by young black men, because that’s the prudent thing to do. But it is also not the Christian thing to do. The best we can usually hope to do is to assume the best motivations for our friends, give the benefit of the doubt to strangers, question our stereotypes before we act upon them, talk things over whenever possible, and remember to confess this sin frequently.
• Wife-Mate used to work in an office with an older woman who was very “fashion conscious.” This woman was always buying clothes, wearing them once or twice, and then giving them away to her co-workers. She gave Wife-Mate things from time to time which she would accept politely and then never wear. Finally, after giving her a black scarf covered with perfectly hideous orange and tan polka-dots, she asked why Wife-Mate never wore any of the things she gave her.
Trying to be diplomatic, Wife-Mate answered, “I usually wear black.”
“But everything I’ve given you has black in it!”
It was only then that Wife-Mate explained that it wasn’t so much that she liked black, as that she hated being colorful.
• When we were first married I caused quite a number of spills in the refrigerator. I would reach over the things of the front of the shelf and grab something, like pickles, by the lid, lift it up, and then the lid would come loose and there would be pickle juice all over the shelf. Each time this would happen I would curse Wife-Mate for being too lazy to screw lids on properly as I cleaned up the mess.
Finally, one day, Wife-Mate asked me why I screwed on jar lids so tight that she could never get them loose.
• One dark winter evening about two years ago, I was leaving work. As I went up the stairs, I could see a young black fellow hanging around the front entrance to my building. He was probably trying to sneak into the building so I began to think through how I was going to get out the door without letting him in. I figured that I would open the door just a crack, slip out, and tell the fellow that he would have to be buzzed in by using the intercom. However, this fellow proved to be quite bold. As soon as I opened the door a crack, he yanked it right open and tried to bolt in before I could stop him. I was about to block him, when I realized that it was Barack Obama. He was there to see a political consultant whose offices were in my building.
• I go to anti-war protests as often as I can. Usually, in fact almost always, there are protestors with signs along the lines of “Keep Abortion Legal.”If you confront these people and ask them why they’re bringing abortion signs to an anti-war rally, they will usually answer something like, “The same people who got us into this war want to oppress us at home by taking our rights away!”
What’s going on here is a sin we don’t often think of: the sin of presumption. When we act on assumptions about other people’s intentions and motivations we fall into venal sin even if these assumptions are correct. Presumption is a sin against charity when we assume the worst of people and at this point becomes a mortal sin. This is a tricky situation, because we often need to act upon assumptions and are not in a position to discern the truth. Sure I tell my kids to keep away from strangers, and yeah my guard is up whenever I’m approached by young black men, because that’s the prudent thing to do. But it is also not the Christian thing to do. The best we can usually hope to do is to assume the best motivations for our friends, give the benefit of the doubt to strangers, question our stereotypes before we act upon them, talk things over whenever possible, and remember to confess this sin frequently.
POSTSCRIPT: A few years ago there was a peace march down State Street. Before we began, I confronted a woman about her “Keep Abortion Legal” sign and she called me a hypocrite for “.. pretending to be for human rights when you’re not against patriarchy!”At that point I let it drop. But later two older black women who were walking down State Street pointed at the home-made sign I was carrying that said: “Christian morality cannot justify a war with Iraq!” — Pope Benedict XVI.
One of them came over to me and said, “I like your sign!”
So I pointed to the abortion sign and asked, “What do you think of that sign?”
She just made a nasty scowl and shook her head.
I guess I just presumed she would, huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
