Maybe the Trinity Is the Reason

So has the culture entirely lost touch with Christian doctrine? Or has the New York Times completely lost touch with our culture. New York Times writer Andy Newman searches for the cultural power of the number three and the only mention of the Trinity is from a pop song:

Perhaps the wise man on “Schoolhouse Rock” said it best:

“Three is a magic number./Yes it is; it’s a magic number./Somewhere in the ancient, mystic trinity/You get three as a magic number.”

Whence, then, the lure of three? How did it become the perfect number of fairy tale characters, of stooges, of syllables in a loved one’s name — tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth?

Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria. Beginning, middle, end. Snap, Crackle, Pop.

Even the wise man of “Schoolhouse Rock” is mystified.

“I have no idea why three is a magic number,” Bob Dorough, the jazz composer who penned the song in 1972, said on Wednesday. “I just knew that it was, and my meager research bore me out, and the song after that just wrote itself.”

Even with the reason right there in front of them, Bob Dorough and Newman can't make the connection. Why not?

Cornell Society...: "Silver linings"

UPDATE: The latest AP poll and others do put the race within the margin of error. But as the Democrats have learned the hard way, it's the electoral college that counts.

---

Here's a (slightly) condensed version of Clara's great post on the election. The bold is mine. My comments in red, Fr. Z style:

About two weeks ago, I realized that Barack Obama was going to be elected as our next president— and, indeed, that we’re soon going to see the advent of the most liberal government that the United States has ever had. It was a bitter thought for a few hours. I reserve the right to get bitter about it again sometime before election day, but mostly I think I’m over it. I mean, yes, this probably does mean that the laws protecting the legal slaughter of innocent children will be extended for a considerable period in the future. It’s also likely to mean a slate of policies of a sort that will further the dissolution of community and family life, particularly among the poor where the effects of this are most grim. These are great tragedies. And I haven’t so entirely given up that I’m not planning to cast my ... vote on election day, but frankly, at this point, I don’t want to dwell on this more than I have to. The world is full of pain and sin, and we’d drive ourselves crazy if we took it all personally.

Actually, we moderns are pretty good at blocking out pain and sin, which is necessary because our newspapers are filled with reports of them day in and day out. [And if that power ever deserts you for a time, it's not fun...] Most of the time we don’t even bother to read the details, knowing how powerless we are to do anything anyway. Elections feel more like our business if only because we’re supposed to vote in them, but honestly, we’re mostly impotent there too. I sometimes like to use them as an “apologetic moment” because of the heightened interest in politics at that time, and also because, in my mind at least, this is the closest a Catholic moral philosopher can come to fulfilling her civic duty. ... But the truth is, I just don’t feel at all connected to American politics. To be frank, it mostly feels like somebody else’s problem to me, so when liberals want to do fool things (like putting a young random with no executive experience, a raging Messiah complex, and a standard slate of naive liberal views into the White House) I’m somewhat inclined to shrug and say, “Well, it’s your funeral.”

Actually, it might really be my funeral too, but I think funerals are less scary for orthodox Catholics than they are for liberals.

And this is first of the “silver linings” that make me more stoical about the coming liberal heyday. When you’re a liberal, political defeat is agonizing because politics is really the primary sphere of goodness for you. If you think that our highest aspiration in life should be the building of a just political society, it’s hard to think what could compensate for failure in this realm. Those of us who realize that a fully just society will never be achieved on earth anyway, that every age will have a considerable share of suffering and sin, and that, for reasons somewhat mysterious to us, God sometimes deems it best to let the wicked prosper for a period, will find it easier to relax a bit about some little thing like an election. Bad times have often been a catalyst for some very good things — the raising up of martyrs, for instance, or the opportunity to win more converts to the faith. Anyway, the Book of Revelation assures us that the world will be steeped in sin and chaos just before the end of days. Perhaps it’s a sign of how much the human race has endured that quite a lot of people over the course of history have looked at the depravity of their societies and thought, “hey, we must be nearly there!” I won’t be so naive as to make any confident predictions, but it’s always a cheering thought when things start looking bad. “End of days coming, just perhaps?”

Even if we’re not at the end of days, though, the further dissolution of Western society can always open up other opportunities. Here’s the way to think about it: in the immediate future, our government is likely to sink further into liberal depravity, just as things are getting better within the Church. Our politicians have been looking pretty bad, but our much-maligned American bishops [Perhaps overly maligned, especially Cardinal Egan.] (not all of them, but definitely some) have been positively inspiring lately! Looks to me like the culture wars are just going to keep raging, but perhaps we’ve reached the point where our Catholic leaders will be willing to assume some prominent role in them. The worsening of American society could actually help to restore integrity to the American Church. That’s certainly a happy thought.

...

Let me be clear at the end here that this is not just a sour-grapes post. I don’t want Obama to be elected, and if something wonky happened and McCain pulled it out instead, I’d definitely be in a celebratory mood. (I was also very cheered to see that Proposition 8 in California has been making a comeback — to be honest, I’d given up on that one too, but I won’t deny that I would be quite delighted if the Protect Marriage people managed to win an improbable victory there.) On the other hand, it’s nice to realize that, for us Catholics (unlike for the liberals), unwelcome political developments can never be cause for despair. [See what she did there, contrasting Catholic and liberal.] Not to be all cliche, but when you’ve got God on your side, you really can’t be beaten in the long run. And when you compare our country to Canada our Western Europe (places, that is, where the conservatives have pretty much just lost), you realize how many reasons we have to be grateful. Even if we can’t save all the unborn children, or restore the institution of marriage to its natural dignity, our continued efforts might nonetheless help us to save the souls of some others. So get excited! Laborers are needed, and the fields are ripe for the harvest.

Deal Hudson also had a little to say about a potential silver lining of an Obama victory.

Today's Crisis, Not the Triumph of Socialism

On "The Corner", Andrew Stuttaford draws our attention to "Simon Jenkins, no man of the right, writing in the Guardian on the current crisis":

"Socialism is now cock of the walk, capitalism mugged by reality.

It is rubbish, total rubbish. Market failure has been compounded by brain failure of the discredited profession of economics, overwhelmed by journalistic wish-fulfilment and glee. The banks have not been "nationalised", just deluged with money.

They remain pluralist and competitive institutions, with independent boards. Their workers are not civil servants. Investors retain their shares. The bonus culture will revive. The impresarios of greed have been punished, or at least a few of them. But this is not socialism in our time, just public money hurled at the face of capitalism."

"A Different Kind of Battlefield"

An interesting comment from the Wholly Roamin' Catholic over on Fr. Z's blog:

"There is no TLM-fitting church in most of my Archdiocese, since nearly all the proper rectangle churches were torn down to make room for the round spaceship churches. I’ve often sat in the pews wondering how a priest would properly offer the old Mass in our round spaceship church—thinking that it’d be easier to offer the Mass in a Baptist church than on the strange altar in the middle of the circle.

"But if brave military chaplains drug mobile chapels out to the battlefields of Korea for Catholic servicemen kneeling in the mud, certainly the Mass can be offered in the suburban spaceships—it’s just a different kind of battlefield."

Photo: Chaplain Gerald F. Clune says Mass for men of Heavy Mortar Co., 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, at Headquarters, 14 October 1951.

Fun with Paulists...

In the context of an article on the desire of some devotees to canonize Audrey Santo, the Boston Globe argues that the Catholic Church is moving away from miracle-working saints.

In past centuries, the church regularly canonized saints such as Joseph of Cupertino, a 17th-century Franciscan known as "the flying friar" for his ability to levitate, and Catherine of Siena, the 14th-century mystic who received the wounds of Christ. But over the last century, the church has shifted, scholars say. Pope Benedict XVI "is more interested in models than in miracle workers," said Lawrence S. Cunningham, a theologian at Notre Dame, and author of "A Brief History of Saints."

Emblematic of contemporary candidates for sainthood, Cunningham said, is the Rev. Solanus Casey. A Capuchin Franciscan, Casey worked for 20 years at the door of St. Bonaventure Monastery in Detroit, quietly counseling thousands, and earning the moniker "The Doorkeeper."

"When it comes to making saints, the Vatican is much more concerned that people are like us - that they live the virtues of faith over charity and wisdom," said the Rev. Paul G. Robichaud, who is leading a movement to canonize Isaac Hecker, who founded the Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle in New York in 1858. "And when you hear about these apparitions or levitations or weeping statues, this catches the public imagination, but it does not impress the Vatican."

This is typical nonsense. Here's a famous Solanus Casey story:

By far the most cool story was the multiplication of the ice cream cones. A woman came into Fr. Casey's office (a priest simplex because of his difficulty with languages, Solanus served as porter) with two ice cream cones for them to share. He thanked her, but, putting the cones in a desk drawer, said they would save the ice cream for later. Because it was a warm summer day and the desk was not refrigerated, she was understandably baffled by this behavior. A few hours later, however, four other people entered the room bearing some good news. "Let's celebrate with an ice cream party!" rejoiced Fr. Casey. He went to his desk draw and pulled out, not two, but six ice cream cones--which had remained perfectly cool and unmelted.

"It pleases Jesus and Mary greatly when we celebrate in this way," he explained.

But, you know, no miracles. Miracles during one's life, as with the case of the 20th century Saint Padre Pio who was both a stigmatist like St. Catherine and levitated like St. Joseph of Cupertino are key, because the first step towards canonization is a local popular cultus, this hurdle must be crossed long before the Vatican ever gets involved.

Meanwhile, being suspected of heresy during your life like Hecker was, even if later cleared, is probably not the best way to impress the Vatican. Particularly, when your postulator goes about making statements that deprecate the importance of the supernatural in the life of faith. These supernatural acts are seen as an important signal of sanctity because they can provide evidence for the perfection of the supernatural virtues. This is literally the faith that moves mountains (Matthew 7:14-21). The deprecation of supernatural virtue over natural virtue was one of the positions condemned in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae.

It's a phone people!

Domino's Pizza's web page is trumpeting mobile ordering, "Order Domino's anywhere now by using your mobile phone." Hello! It's a phone; it's mobile. You can already use it to order pizza anywhere.

A Different Kind of Episcopal Spine

Bishop Manuel A. Cruz is a new auxiliary of the Archdiocese of Newark and a Cuban expatriate. He's also a former hospital chaplain and he's not buying the party line about Cuban health care:

Fleeing communist Cuba at a young age, Msgr. Cruz is proud of his title as "refugee" and believes that living through the experience has strengthened him and deepened his faith. He recently arranged for medicine to be shipped to the island for a sick young woman. "The medicine is expensive and hard to get in Cuba. This situation really put things in perspective for me. You ask yourself 'Why am I here? Why am I so different?' As a refugee, you realize that everything you have is a gift."

He's no Louis

King Mswati III of Swaziland is under fire again, this time in the New York Times:

...Swazis have enjoyed decades of peace and are proud of their culture. But poverty has entrapped two-thirds of the people, leaving hundreds of thousands malnourished. And these days death casually sweeps away even the strong. The country has one of the worst rates of H.I.V. infection in the world. Life expectancy has fallen from 60 years in 1997 to barely half that now. Nearly a third of all children have lost a parent.

“How can the king live in luxury while his people suffer?” asked Siphiwe Hlophe, a human rights activist. “How much money does he need, anyway?”

That question was as confounding as it was impertinent. In the government’s latest budget, about $30 million was set aside for “royal emoluments.”

Now it is the New York Times, but even so, the Queen of England manages to get by on £40 million or roughly $72 million dollars.

Now that's more than twice what Swaziland's King gets, but the Monarchy costs Britons only 0.003% of their nation's $2.137 trillion gross domestic product.

However, the King's emoluments are 0.5% of Swaziland's $5.63 billion GDP. Swazis are comparatively getting hosed, paying 167 times as much as a percentage of GDP. So it's not surprising that they're angry:

The rowdiest of the demonstrators flung rocks, looted goods from sidewalk vendors and even set off a few small explosions. Others made impromptu placards with torn up cardboard. “Down with 40-40!” read one, while another demanded, “Democracy now!” A few protesters chanted things meant to make rich people feel guilty: “My mother was a kitchen girl. My father was a garden boy. That’s why I’m a Socialist.”

The angriest of them went so far as to insist that the nation had little to celebrate.

It's a useful reminder that not every king is a Saint Louis.

To The King

A Wall Street Journal column defends the Whig view of history, but not with particularly brilliant reasoning:

"William of Orange's 'Declaration,' then, was an honest document, as his benevolent rule -- and that of his wife, Mary -- would prove. ... They founded the Bank of England, greatly increased trade and stayed out of war with France until Louis XIV rashly recognized James Stuart, James II's son, as England's rightful king."

So how did they keep England out of war? Louis XIV recognizing James Stuart is just maintaining the status quo. It's William's invasion that shakes things up. If he hadn't invaded England and tossed out James II in the first place, there would have been nothing rash about recognizing James Stuart.

Rich Leonardi also has a good post on the piece. Don't miss the commentator who's wandered in to point out that the Glorious Revolution was indeed glorious because it "ended the pernicious influence of the Papists in English history and freed England from being just another lackey of Louis XIV's France."

McCain Palin Video

This is from before she was picked, I believe.

(via The Corner)

Interesting Liturgical News From Bangladesh

The Bishops in Bangladesh take action:"Church Tries To Protect Traditional Hymns, End Loud Singing" Apparently, the melodies and lyrics are set, no new songs are currently being composed, and it's not clear if accompaniment other than the harmonium (?!) is allowed:

The program assembled 71 liturgical singers in charge of leading choirs, and parish liturgy committee representatives from the country's five dioceses and one archdiocese to learn the correct musical notes to be played and sung in the hymns, as well as how loudly they should be sung. ... Over the decades, Father Sima further noted, there have been developments such as using the harmonium to accompany hymns, and the recent seminar included instruction on the correct musical notes to be sung for those hymns.

Different music suits different times, he said, and for religious occasions, two types of music, traditional and band, or pop-style, songs are available, "but band songs destroy the beauty, depth and spirituality of liturgy."

The priest did concede, however, that band music could be used on certain occasions, "but not in liturgical celebrations."

...New hymns are not being composed, he added, but ECLP is now thinking of doing something to change that.

Heather King on the Saints

"Saints aren’t 'good,' they’re beyond good, they’re part crazy."

The Martyrdom of Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., Mexico City, November 23, 1927
via Internet Monk

"Doctors wrestle with South Dakota abortion law"

Emily Bazelon's confusing take in Slate Magazine:

"On the one hand, the organization doesn't want to put abortion providers in legal jeopardy, since failure to follow the law can be punished as a criminal misdemeanor. On the other hand, doctors have an ethical responsibility to give patients accurate medical information. The mandatory statement linking abortion to an increased risk of suicide isn't supported by reliable medical evidence. And the statements about the fetus as a human being are moral or philosophical rather than scientific at heart, in Planned Parenthood's view. So what's an abortion provider in South Dakota to do?"

Well it seems clear to me. If making the statement about the "fetus as a human being" is objectionable because it is "moral or philosophical" rather than "scientific" than it seems we can derive the principle:

S: Doctors should base their advice on science and not moral or philosophical principles.

Taking S as true, than the ethical responsibility to provide patients with accurate medical information is moot, given that it is a moral or philosophical principle and not a scientific one. So Doctors should ignore ethics and follow the law, for the punishments of the state are scientific facts.

Or we might see that we have arrived at an absurd conclusion and admit that it is not the case that a statement's being moral or philosophical rather than scientific disqualifies it as proper medical advice.

The Pennywhistlers

I've been thinking a lot more about Pete Seeger ever since I went to see The Power of Song when it was playing here in New York. I had known about his albums and concerts, but not about his TV shows. Which, not surprisingly are available on Youtube. Here's one with Johnny Cash and June Carter (not yet Cash herself...). Cash appears to be pretty strung out here, but the singing is still impressive.
And this is a group called the Pennywhistlers who I'd never heard of but apparently made a name for themselves with Eastern European folk songs.

"Socrates Heads It in and Leibniz Doesn't Have a Chance"

I was of course familiar with the Philosopher's Song, but I'd never seen this other Monty Python philosophy bit before:

"Maybe that's in the episode I didn't see."

Anderson Cooper's response to Kelly Ripa's comment "They're obviously a talented family" about Living Lohan.
(via TVNewser)

MySpace... It's Almost As Good As Napster

before we knew that Napster was wrong... I've been listening to songs from Spirit of the West that I've wanted to get my hands on for years, but were out of print.

God Bless America... and Don't Talk to the Police

(from Regent University School of Law via Metafilter)

It's Obviously a Practicum (check the instructor's name)

Should you settle?

Scott Croft and Candice Watters respond in Boundless to Lori Gottlieb's article "Marry Him: The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough" in the March 2008 Atlantic. Here's a sample, the same one Croft uses:

My advice is this: Settle! That's right. Don't worry about passion or intense connection.... Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year.



Whenever I make the case for settling, people look at me with creased brows of disapproval or frowns of disappointment.... It's not only politically incorrect to get behind settling, it's downright un-American. Our culture tells us to keep our eyes on the prize ... and the theme of holding out for true love ... permeates our collective mentality.

Croft and Watters both make many good points, but they both insist that what they advocate is not "settling". Croft writes:

What's more, nobody really "settles" in a biblical marriage because God has designed marriage as a wonderful gift that gets better with age. This is what people worried about settling don't seem to get. They think joy in marriage is all about the original choice one makes about whom to marry, rather than how the nurture and build their marriage. Again, this misses the picture of biblical marriage.



Read Song of Songs. Look at the implied deepening of a marriage that has to take place if Ephesians 5:22-33 is to be lived out. Sure, it takes hard work. But if two people are truly faithful as spouses, growing in God's word, studying one another deeply and attentively with an eye toward uniquely ministering to and serving each other, both will find that 10 years in they are known and loved and cared for better and more deeply than when they were newly married. That doesn't hinder passion, people. It builds it. More on this in later articles perhaps.

Candice Watters writes:

Choosing to marry a man — whomever he is — inevitably involves compromise (on his part, and yours). That's why it's not truly settling. It's just making a decision. Something we do every time we pick one thing over another. In most areas, it's called being decisive. For some reason we've made indecision noble when it comes to dating.

Watters article is better about this than Croft's, but I think they give Gottleib too little credit for the insights at which she has arrived. Of course, she has a secular view of marriage, she's secular (at least so far as she describes herself in the article.) But she's right that there's a kind of settling here. Choosing is settling, settling is deciding. "I've considered chocolate; I've considered vanilla and I'm settling on vanilla." I'm not neccesarily taking a position on which is better, I'm just not holding out for butterscotch to come along.