AWE-some is almost all I have to say. It was like watching the band up close through a window. From time to time animations were projected on the window but they also ran behind band members too.
Here's a review from Christianity Today.
Go. See. It.
(I wonder does anybody go to Confession with a laundry list of the number of times they've forgotten to turn off a lamp, used plastic bags or failed to separate their paper and glass recycling?)
Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican
By Malcolm Moore in Rome
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 10/03/2008
Failing to recycle plastic bags could find you spending eternity in Hell, the Vatican said after drawing up a list of seven deadly sins for our times.
The seven, which include polluting the environment, were announced by Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, a close ally of the Pope and the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, one of the Roman Curia's main court.
Polluting the environment by failing to recycle is one of the new seven deadly sins
The "sins of yesteryear" - sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride - have a "rather individualistic dimension", he told the Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper.
The new seven deadly, or mortal, sins are designed to make worshippers realise that their vices have an effect on others as well.
"The sins of today have a social resonance as well as an individual one," said Mgr Girotti. "In effect, it is more important than ever to pay attention to your sins."
According to Roman Catholic doctrine, mortal sins are a "grave violation of God's law" and bring about "eternal death" if unrepented by the act of confession.
They are far more serious than venial sins, which impede a soul's progress in the exercise of virtue and moral good.
Mgr Girotti said genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs were all mortal sins.
Sounds like it's a mortal sin now to be American, at least by Euro-weenie standards.
The fun part? For us, the MDG's are entirely optional, and you may feel free to ignore. For you guys? Not so much.
Cue it up, Abbot and Mrs. P: The horror!
Wait, there's more:
The comments of the original "Green Lent" post veered into attacking the Episcopal Church for promoting birth control by--horrors!-- promoting use of condoms. Not to go all humane vitae on you guys, but this is one of the funniest things I've read in awhile:
A Vatican-sanctioned sex guide is encouraging churchgoers to make love more often in an effort to offset "impotence and frigidity" and address papal concerns over declining birth-rates among Italian Roman Catholics.
The controversial book, It's A Sin Not To Do It, written by two theologians, promises the reader answers to "everything you wanted to know about sex but the Church (almost) never dared to tell you".
In their attempt to galvanise the faithful, Roberto Beretta and Elisabetta Broli, who write regularly for the Italian Bishops' magazine, Avvenire, have written one of the raciest works ever to deal with the Church and sex.
Bullet points on the jacket cover underline the central message: "Sex? God invented it. Original sin? Sex has nothing to do with it. Without sex there is no real marriage."
"When people think of the Church and sex, they think of prohibitions and taboos," said Beretta. "But there is a very different and positive side to Church doctrine which needs to be emphasised."
In both style and content, the guide - published earlier this month - marks a radical break with traditional Church pronouncements on physical intimacy. Forty years ago, the Vatican published a notorious set of guidelines for courting Catholics that outlawed even French kissing before marriage.
The pages of It's A Sin Not To Do It, however, feature a frank interview with Cardinal Ersilio Tonini in which he emphasises that "the Church is not an enemy of the flesh". He argues that Vatican doctrine has always defended the "nobility of sexuality", which is regarded by the Church as a "treasure" of humanity.
Another chapter likely to raise eyebrows unearths theological justification for post-coital masturbation for women who fail to achieve orgasm during intercourse.
Beretta told The Telegraph: "The Church is not against sex. Something needed to be done about the cliches and stereotypes. The Church is not only about forbidding the use of contraception and warning against the sins of the flesh.
"In view of the trivialisation of sex and the rise of impotence and frigidity in consequence, as well as the increasing number of only children, it is better for the Church to promote sex in the right circumstances, instead of just focusing on prohibitions and perversions."
The authors have included passages taken from previous papal statements on sexuality, and pronouncements from cardinals who advocate a "healthy Catholic materialism" about marital sex.
The Vatican has regularly expressed its concerns over Italy's low birth rate, which stands at fewer than nine births per thousand inhabitants. Two years ago, in an address to the Italian parliament, Pope John Paul described the declining rate as "a serious threat that weighs on the future of the country".
According to Beretta, the book is a comprehensive summary of Church doctrine on sexuality, couched in deliberately populist language.
He said: "We deliberately set out to discuss the Church's attitude towards sex in frank, secular language. But everything in this book is taken from conventional doctrine. Because of the widespread assumption that the Church loathes sexuality, most people are not aware of the positive things it has to say about physical intimacy."
He is now awaiting reader reaction. "The Vatican has not raised any concerns about the tone and style of the book," he said. "Some people might find it a little direct. But at least after reading this book, they will have a balanced picture of what the Church actually thinks about sex."
No word on whether there's a picture of a pouty-mouthed buck-toothed Ethel Kennedy in a leather bustierre and whip on the cover...
1
Steve,
I can't help thinking of Laurence Olivier's Lord Marchmain when you write about the Church. Have you seen or read "Brideshead Revisited?" Additionally, I think of the reference to the Father Brown mysteries, referenced in Waugh's novel. Cordelia reminds Charles of the evening at Brideshead when her mother read aloud from a detective story written by G. K. Chesterton, and was interrupted by Sebastian making his first drunken appearance. “Father Brown said something like ‘I caught him’ [the thief] with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world and still bring him back with a twitch upon the thread.” Brideshead Revisited, if the author’s intention matters, is a story of some fishes lost in a great sea until they are finally hauled to safety by a jerk of the pole in the hands of the Fisher King.
You hop around the perimeter of the R.C. Church, pointing and doing the Nelson Muntz "Ha ha!", but it still feels as if you could be brought back with but a "twitch upon the thread," to quote Father Brown.
Well, if you haven't read it or seen it, it may be too rambling to flesh out in this posting.
Just the feeling I get, or perhaps it is wishful thinking.
Posted by: Monica at March 10, 2008 10:44 AM (OuSfq)
2
It seems to me that all these new sins can be reduced to that grand old sin, Pride. But then again even the original seven deadly sins were merely Pride in fancy dress.
Posted by: old school lady at March 10, 2008 11:18 AM (dFemX)
3 Ah - Steve-O my boy. You warm my heart with your apostatin' ways. And you're damn funny besides.
Posted by: Chai-rista at March 10, 2008 11:41 AM (ERCKE)
4
Evelyn Waugh is great stuff, and Jeremy Irons was wonderful. My point is, though, the Fisher King doesn't necessarily wear the Papal Tiara. To say what I was doing in the post was Nelson Muntzing is exactly right: this whole process has radicalized me as an Episcopalian, listening to the systematic and vulgar trashing the Episcopal priesthood in particular and faith in general has been taking from commentators. The Green thing was one such example offered up of the stupidity and vulgarity of my faith: my pointing out, Nelson Muntz style, that the Vatican is doing it now too is exactly that, a sound Nelson Muntz "Ha Ha."
My finest hour? No. But a fella can only take so much.
And that might be very well all I have to say.
Posted by: Steve-O at March 10, 2008 12:20 PM (4/H9X)
5
Really now, this is over the top. Did you have to give us that image of Ethel Kennedy?
Posted by: Steve-O at March 10, 2008 12:43 PM (4/H9X)
7
(sigh) If your selections reflect the current communications theme at HQ, it sounds like our fine Teutonic pope has himself a new Chief Marketing Officer. In Corporate America, I'm told that the typical CMO lasts just over 2 years. May we hope for the same here.
I mean, honestly. Telling an Irish Catholic to go get busy with his or her spouse. What's next, 'The bishop says to go ahead and have a pint'? Hello? This is what we do, people.
Posted by: tdp at March 10, 2008 02:18 PM (7CsBg)
8
Steve, did the Pope himself actually announce that "These are the new Seven Deadly Sins" or did some reporter bloke (or his editor) think this was a spiffy headline? I think I'll wait for the encyclical to find out if there is any New Teaching rather than taking Fox News or even "The Times" (of London, as you colonials insist on adding) as my cathechism.
I agree that it's not fair to bash the Episcopal Church (since it's doing such a fine job of running itself into the ground). However, I'm a little fuzzy on what your point about more sex is - after all, if it's to increase the birth rate, I don't think the use of condoms is being encouraged here?
Posted by: Fuinseoig at March 10, 2008 04:14 PM (dUFtn)
9
Ah Steve...I suggest standing back and taking a deep breath when it comes to the reporting of the Catholic Church...that way you won't fall so hard for incorrect reports:
The Forum: Not "new sins" but an old media blind spot
by Phil Lawler
Mar. 10, 2008 (CWNews.com) - When he finished his interview with L'Osservatore Romano, Archishop Gianfranco Girotti probably thought that his main message had been an appeal to Catholics to use the sacrament of Confession. Little did he know that the English-language news media would play the interview as a newly revised list of sins.
Archbishop Girotti, the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, spoke to the Vatican newspaper about "new forms of social sin" in our era. He mentioned such transgressions as destructive research on human embryos, degradation of the environment, and drug trafficking. Within hours, dozens of media sources were suggesting that the Vatican had radically revised the Ten Commandments, issuing a list of "new sins."
As usual, a British newspaper leapt to the forefront with the most sensational and misleading coverage. The Daily Telegraph made the preposterous claim that Archbishop Girotti's list replaced the traditional Catholic understanding of the seven deadly sins:
It replaces the list originally drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th Century, which included envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride.
Could we have a reality check, please?
When a second-tier Vatican official gives a newspaper interview, he is not proclaiming new Church doctrines. Archbishop Girotti was obviously trying to offer a new, provocative perspective on some enduring truths. The effort backfired-- but in a very revealing way.
An ordinary reader, basing his opinion only on the inane Telegraph coverage, might conclude that a "sin," in the Catholic understanding, is nothing more than a violation of rules set down by a group of men in Rome. If these rules are entirely arbitrary, then Vatican officials can change them at will; some sins will cease to exist and other "new sins" will replace them. But that notion of sin is ludicrous.
Sin is an objective wrong: a violation of God's law. What is sinful today will be sinful tomorrow, and a deadly sin will remain deadly, whether or not Telegraph editors recognize the moral danger. The traditional list of deadly sins remains intact; nothing has replaced it. Greed, gluttony, and lust are as wrong today as they were a day or a year or a century ago. If Archbishop Girotti referred to "new" sins, it is because some of the offenses he named (such as genetic manipulation) were impossible in the past, and others (such as international drug trafficking) are much more prevalent today, in a global society. Insofar as people could have engaged in these activities a century ago, they would have been sinful then as well.
A sin is not a sin because simply an archbishop proclaims it so. Sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us, "is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience…" The precepts of "reason, truth, and right conscience" do not shift in response to political trends, nor do they change at the whim of Vatican officials.
The fundamental point of the L'Osservatore Romano interview was that Catholics need to recover a sense of sin, make use of the sacrament of Confession, and receive absolution for their offenses. Sin, the archbishop insisted, is a reality that man cannot escape.
Archbishop Girotti said that the modern world does not understand the nature of sin. With their coverage of the interview, the mass media unintentionally underlined the prelate's point.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at March 10, 2008 07:20 PM (RT2hX)
10
About your sex story with Catholics...it might be helpful for your readers that you point out the article you cited was from November of 2004. Here's a bit more on those two writers and 'their book'for your readers:
Heretical Book Just the Latest from Horny 'Theologians'
November 22, 2004
ASJ is often asked what we’re talking about when we denounce movements in the Catholic Church that wrongly exalt sex at the expense of our traditional teachings about sexuality. Well, a perfect example has arrived off the presses to serve as Exhibit A. The book It’s a Sin Not to Do It, by Italian theologians Roberto Beretta and Elisabetta Broli, is by no means a novelty, but a representative work in a genre we mockingly call “sexual liberation theology.” These books invariably claim that the Catholic instinct to be hushed and restrictive about sex is actually opposed to the “true” divine teachings about sex.
The authors write in the context of very low fertility rates in Italy. They believe this problem is caused by widespread frigidity among Italians that results from the Church promoting a pervasive, negative view of sex!
If this were the extent of their remarks, they would be dismissed as a laughable. But the real danger of this book is the theological statements it makes on the nature of sex and sin. As if the title isn’t sinister enough, the book jacket is littered with bullets that compromise Catholic and Biblical truth.
In fact, the book directly attacks the very teachings that ASJ is working to restore to the Church. Therefore, one by one, the Apostolate of St. Jerome, guided by our Patron and his knowledge of the sacred texts, exposes these lies for what they are. We take three bullets from the book jacket, and refute each in turn. Please bear with us in our repetitions of their shameful and offensive words.
Bullet 1: “Sex? God created it!”
This comment shows the direct contrast between the authors and ASJ. For we claim that the single biggest error in the Church right now is the belief that God created sex. But actually this lie of theirs has a hint of truth to it. For in one sense God did create sex. He created sex for animals to reproduce. But that Adam and Eve had no need of sex before the Fall St. Jerome hints at when he explains that Adam and Eve were “virgins unspotted” in their Edenic bliss. Indeed, they would have stayed that way but for the fact that our nature was so changed as a result of sin that we fell to the shame of generating in the manner of the beasts.
We know God couldn’t have made sex because when He finally restores creation in the resurrection, we will be, as Jesus reminds us, “like the angels who neither marry nor are given in marriage.” It would be absurd to think that God would create something good for temporal paradise and then ban it from eternal paradise. This would have God undoing his own creation. And further evidence of this is that the first fruits of the New Creation of both sexes, Jesus and the Virgin Mary, were both destined to have lives free of copulation. The New Adam and Eve regain what Adam and Eve had lost—the ability to generate without sex.
God never intended for humans to have sex. He permits it by concession in marriage when it is open to conception to avoid totally losing our race.
Bullet 2: “Original Sin? Sex has nothing to do with it!”
In the New Testament gospel of Matthew, the Church has always attached significance to the fact that the passage about children coming to Jesus comes right after the teachings about marriage. We take this to mean that marriage and children are linked in the divine will. Juxtaposition of themes means something in Scripture. So when Adam and Eve are banished from Eden in Genesis, and then in the very next line we hear that “Adam knew Eve,” Israelites and Christians of every era of understood that there was a connection between these two acts. This is obscured a little today by chapter designations which many do not understand are not part of the inspired text.
In pre-Christian belief, an emission of semen, even in marital intercourse, rendered a man unclean for worship. This is a direct connection between sex and sin. The Catholic Christian Church rightly took this belief and ran with it. Whether the priesthood, the life of Jesus, or the life of Mary, we find lives of abstinence everywhere that the stain of sin has no right to exist.
What is puzzling is that even the much more common view of Thomas Aquinas and others (incorrect in our opinion) that believes in prelapsarian intercourse, holds that the sex experience would be markedly different had man not fallen. Only persons totally ignorant of the Scriptures could suggest that Original Sin and sex have nothing to do with one another.
Bullet 3: “Without sex there is no real marriage.”
This statement is true, sex is essential to form a sacramental marriage, but it is misleading. The authors try to argue that sex must be good because without it there is no marriage which is good. But when the truth about marriage is understood, that it is a remedial state far beneath celibacy but well above fornication, the argument loses its force. As St. Jerome teaches, God tolerates sex as being preferable to fornication. But He would rather His children be able to live celibacy and virginity and not need marriage. The authors might as well say that without crucifixion there is no Paschal Mystery, and therefore crucifixion is good. God tolerated seeing His son treated this way because He knew He could bring good out of it. He would have rather Jesus never need to die. The same goes for marriage.
These writers make all the same tired mistakes as the rest of the pseudo-Catholic theologians out there. Finally, they reach the depraved but logical result of their errors. They purportedly offer justification for post-coital masturbation. Here they directly conflict Church teaching, expressed in Casti Connubii, which condemns such “laying much stress on these physiological matters, in which is learned rather the art of sinning in a subtle way than the virtue of living chastely.”
It would be one thing if these two were just lone voices in the wilderness, but their same errors are running rampant all over Christendom. And such views draw no condemnations from official Church leaders and thus give Catholics no reason to think they are illegitimate.
The only reason ASJ isn’t more concerned about these heretics is that their own logic is so preposterous that no intelligence person could believe them. For are we really to believe that single-child families and low birth rates are a result of a lack of sex? Does not a more obvious reason come to mind? Of course it does. Sex is just as popular as ever inside and outside of marriage. It’s just that contraception use is far more prevalent than it was in the prior nineteen centuries when all Christian groups saw birth control for the perversion that it is.
This duo has collaborated on books before. In a previous work, The Eleven Commandments, they set out to expose a variety of Scriptural myths that they claim Catholics wrongly believe. Most of these are harmless like “Eve didn’t eat an apple,” and “Jesus wasn’t born on 25 December.” Duh. But thanks for attacking the authors of children’s books who, following the command to let the little ones come to Jesus, seek to make palatable to kids the violent and sexual pages of the Bible. These mistakes are not on the Church but on the part of Catholic adults who get little if any religious education after childhood. Do the authors also want us to tell children that the revelry at the golden calf was a sexual orgy? Or that the fourth joyful mystery is really a partial mutilation of the male genital? Actually, they would probably like that. For it is well-known in Vatican circles that these two unmarried journalists have, shall we say, a bit more than a mere professional relationship. Like many heretical theologians they do not live the Church’s teaching about sexuality, but their own false teachings that pervert the Lord’s truth to their own destruction. When such ideas come from so-called “theologians” they often carry weight with the public. But hopefully ASJ can expose this couple for the horny, intellectual light-weights that they are.
It is good in a sense that books like this make it into the public eye. They make concrete the face of the enemy that we claim to combat. They draw into sharp relief the critical battle over the direction of the Church’s sexual theology.
On one side stands fallen, miserable creatures like Beretta and Broli, unable to let their spiritual senses see above the desires of the fallen flesh. They want to say that sex was part of God’s creation, and that anyone who would seek to do without opposes God’s will.
On the other side of the apocalyptic battle plain are the heroes of Catholic orthodoxy, under the blazing standard of the Apostolate of St. Jerome. We claim that we can only deliver the Church and society from the plague of sexual sin by realizing that sex is a stain on our Original nature, never intended by God, who will, on the contrary, do away with this act when He re-fashions our bodies in the resurrection. By living celibacy and virginity, we help usher in the age when all Christians join Jesus and Mary as perpetual celibates in the joy of heaven.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at March 10, 2008 07:28 PM (RT2hX)
11
Steve-o, that last one was for shock value. After reading what you wrote of what I've written, I felt like tossing it at you.
Sorry. It's just I've been where you are headed and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at March 10, 2008 09:40 PM (9baX0)
As for the book on sex, well, it's probably ill advised. Europe's problem is not that they don't know about sex, it's that they start having abortions at 14.
Humanae Vitae is a greatly underrated encyclical; all the predictions for which it was mocked have come true, and its view of human sexuality is more enlightened than that of virtually any document in our culture. It values it properly; the culture does not.
Posted by: The Abbot at March 11, 2008 06:38 AM (QBuXz)
I do not know what Cleveland means and at this point I no longer care. I threw that last piece at you to shock you. I wasAs if to throw cold water on you and stop you from being so rude.
You were rude. You must have forgotten that you were the one who wrote me last December 14 (we had never exchanged private emails before) telling me you were entering the Episcopal Church. You told me you couldn't really say why, just that you were being called that way and then you asked me to pray for you. In follow up emails, you and I agreed to spar over the two churches while remaining polite.
Then last night I read this:
"To say what I was doing in the post was Nelson Muntzing is exactly right: this whole process has radicalized me as an Episcopalian, listening to the systematic and vulgar trashing the Episcopal priesthood in particular and faith in general has been taking from commentators."
I can honestly say that had you not sent me that email, I never would have gone as far as I did with my sparring. I may have had a comment or two but nothing like I did. I barely knew you and frankly, wouldn't have cared as to what you were up to. But you had sought me out so that changed things. Several weeks ago, I saw your mind was made up about the Episcopal Church and I gave trying.
Last week I saw you mocking the sacrament of confession in the Catholic Church while noting how long the Rite of confession service is in the book of Common Prayer. You failed to point out the main difference between of the sacrament of confession in the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church. In the Catholic Church it, like all the other sacraments, is necessary. You must do it once a year to remain in good standing. In the Episcopal Church it is not necessary. As a result, in my 37 years as an Episcopalian my priests never offered the Rite of Confession to me..not even before I was married. The general confession was good enough for them, therefore for me. But is it really? Does a general confession really wipe away mortal sins?
That's a big difference. One that is worth sparring over. But I'm done for good because as you wrote, I've contributed to your radicalization as an Episcopalian.
For that I am truly sorry.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at March 11, 2008 07:43 AM (50dmr)
15
Hey, I was going for loopy and snarky, not rude and angry, but if it came across as rude of course I'm sorry. The Cleveland line is an injoke in the Butcher's Shop.
Of course what I SHOULD be apologizing for is the visceral image of Ethel Kennedy with a come-hither look in S&M gear, but I'm not sorry one whit. Suffer!!!!
Posted by: Steve-O at March 11, 2008 09:37 AM (4/H9X)
Sea levels are set to fall over millions of years, making the current rise blamed on climate change a brief interruption of an ancient geological trend, scientists said on Thursday.
They said oceans were getting deeper and sea levels had fallen by about 170 meters (560 ft) since the Cretaceous period 80 million years ago when dinosaurs lived. Previously, the little-understood fall had been estimated at 40 to 250 meters.
"The ocean floor has got on average older and gone down and so the sea level has also fallen," said Bernhard Steinberger at the Geological Survey of Norway, one of five authors of a report in the journal Science.
"The trend will continue," he told Reuters.
A computer model based on improved understanding of shifts of continent-sized tectonic plates in the earth's crust projects more deepening of the ocean floor and a further sea level decline of 120 meters in 80 million years' time.
If sea levels were to fall that much now, Russia would be connected to Alaska by land over what is now the Bering Strait, Britain would be part of mainland Europe and Australia and Papua island would be the same landmass.
The study aids understanding of sea levels by showing that geology has played a big role alongside ice ages, which can suck vast amounts of water from the oceans onto land.
1
I'm only in El Paso long enough to drive through it from Palm Springs to Houston and back twice a year, so all I can tell you is that Cracker Barrel has a lot of grandmas.
Posted by: geomatic1 at March 09, 2008 12:44 AM (fn9eN)
2
Just stay away from Rosa's Cantina, I hear that place is trouble.
Posted by: Boy Named Sous at March 09, 2008 03:24 AM (jiBuF)
3
Things change over time, but check and see if there is a "La Fonda's" in town. Semi-upscale formal sit-down white table cloth chain-that's-not-a-chain group--all of which long ago became independent. The best is in Lafayette, La., with the one in San Antonio a close second. Super Margarita's and even better food. Know anybody in the Army who's ever been or is currently stationed or retired there?
Big Army presence there--they would know best.
Posted by: virgil xenophon at March 09, 2008 03:40 AM (OuFKp)
4
PS: Just hit google(which I should have done beforehand) and appears LaFonda"s everywhere BUT
El Paso. Also reviews sadly indicate one in S.A.
has declined. No other personal experience upon
which to make a suggestion. I've only passed thru.
Posted by: virgil xenophon at March 09, 2008 03:58 AM (OuFKp)
5
If you don't mind driving the 46 miles to Las Cruces NM, there's a wonderful "winery" restaurant called St Clair Bistro, at ~1800 Avenida de Mesilla, just south of the freeway, that I hit 4 times when I was in town on business at the beginning of February. Also recommended by all of the other conference attendees that I convinced to try it. Check out their wines and menus online at: http://www.stclairvineyards.com/Bistro-lascruces.htm
Posted by: Manny at March 09, 2008 01:34 PM (QfVb0)
6
If you have time, Cattleman's is good just for the experience.
http://www.cattlemanssteakhouse.c o m /
If BBQ is what you're after try the State Line Restaurant on the west side of town. Bout 10 minutes from downtown.
I come in peace." The Future ROTC Scholarship Recipient is back on a Toy Story kick. The name he was given at birth is not good enough and he has taken to telling everyone he will henceforth be known as Buzz Lightyear. We have had at least two father-son talks about that there is a time for playing, a time for pretending, and a time to be serious. Preschool, speech therapist, Mass, directives from Mrs. LMC, and father-son talks are all serious, all the time. This is getting through his stubborn little head some of the time. Hhmmm-must get that from my bride's side of the family.
1
Raising boys is such a wonderful experience. My second son used to "blast off" into his inner mind while mindlessly humming to himself. I once remarked to my mother "what could he be thinking about?" She said "I have no idea, but don't ask him!"
When I needed him to focus, I would place my hands shoulder width apart, palms facing inward, index fingers on top and wave them up and down framing his face while saying "Nick, right here, Mommy is sending you a message." If I added to that "and Mommy is now in a sweat" that was code for his world was going to crash in about 3 minutes if he didn't snap out of it...
Posted by: Babs at March 09, 2008 05:42 PM (iZZlp)
2
Needless to say we called him the Space Pirate.
Not much of a stretch from Buzz Lightyear.
Posted by: Babs at March 10, 2008 03:27 AM (iZZlp)
3
My vet calls it disassociative behavior but, you are allowed to beat your dog, aren't you?
Posted by: Babs at March 10, 2008 03:36 AM (iZZlp)
I know relatively few people wander into the ol' Butcher's Shop over the weekends, but if you're showing up here bright-eyed and bushy-tailed on Monday morning looking for fresh Yips!, I have to report that I won't be here.
Indeed, I will be away on my travels all week and won't get back to Orgle Manor until Friday evening. And lest you get any funny idea in your collective imagination that this constitutes some kind of Spring Break for Robbo, let me just tell you here and now that it's going to be nothing of the sort - this trip is work related, and not only that, it's a-gonna be hellish.
Anyhoo, I'm calling out the rest of our herd to step it up in my absence. (Indeed, it may even be time for an appearance of the Scottish Dwarf, who hasn't been round here in a while.) And I'll see you lot hopefully when I get back.
Yip! Yip! Yip!
The eldest Llama-ette is celebrating her tenth birthday today (even though it is not actually for another couple weeks). She is doing so with a large early evening party, after which something like six of her friends are going to stay for a sleepover.
Thank Heaven we at least have a basement.
UPDATE: In the "Last Thing I Expected To Be Doing After An Awful Day At The Office And A Soaking Commute Home" catagory, I found myself spending much of last evening playing successive games of Trivial Pursuits Jr. with various batches of young ladies who wandered up from the basement from time to time. (I've noticed more and more lately that the Llama-ettes' friends are beginining to glom on to me whenever given the opportunity. Go figure.)
What was hi-larious about it was the fact that this edition of the game (which the Missus picked up for a buck at some thrift shop) came out some time in the mid-80's. While all the gels did very well with topics such as science, sports and books, most of the cultural references were utterly out of date and they looked at me in completely blank incomprehension when I asked questions such as what was the name of She-Ra's castle, who was the arch-enemy of the Masters of the Universe and what fast-food chain's food is "finger-lickin' good". Indeed, one question even involved the use of a rotary telephone - one of the guests got it right, so she informed me, because she's "seen a lot of old movies".
UPDATE DEUX: I forgot to mention that for party favors, the Missus got a whole crate-load of Webkinz frogs. I begin to understand how Pharoah felt.
1
Do you get to hide in the basement or do you send them down there to the dungeon?
Posted by: Jordana at March 07, 2008 12:13 PM (TsPFB)
2
Did you forget that you have a looooong RCIA class tonight that you have to go to? I'm sure you're disappointed that you won't be home for the birthday, but it it a mandatory class. I think it's being held at O'Malley's pub.
Posted by: rbj at March 07, 2008 02:36 PM (UgG6+)
3
I have that edition of Trivial Pursuit! It's fun to play with 30-somethings!
Posted by: caltechgirl at March 08, 2008 09:46 PM (IfXtw)
Absent-mindedly walked off from the llamamobile this morning without my umbrella and there's a near certainty of rain in Dee Cee this afternoon. The only back-up I have is a little pop-up University of Nebraska brollie that I picked up on my travels a few years ago.
Just in case you see me and, you know, get confused.
Dee Cee's metro system continually broadcasts various courtesy and safety messages over its intercom system. This morning, something odd about them occurred to me.
One of the messages is a gentle reminder not to block the left side of the escalators so that people may walk up and down if they wish. It starts, "Hi! You may have noticed we have a lot of escalators in our system. Most people prefer to stand to the right." (It doesn't include the interjection "Golly!" at the beginning, but you can sense that from its general tone.)
Another message is the result of 9/11 and heightened security. It starts, "'Is that your bag?' These little words can mean so much...." It's so fubsy that one half-expects an outburst of baby-talk or the rhyming of "June" and "moon".
But the third message that has started airing lately is about food. "Would you pay a hundred dollars for a burger? I wouldn't. But that's just what will happen to you if you get caught eating in the metro system." Also, almost all the free-standing signs at the stations are of the same ilk: Eating and drinking is prohibited in the metro. "It's the law." This is as close to Achtung! as you're going to get there.
Now as a matter of fact, I fully understand the anti-consumption policy. Metro is relatively free of rats and other vermin and the authorities want to keep it that way. All well and good. But I would also think the serious, almost hostile tone of its messages would be equally applicable to the detection of suitcase bombs or other IED's. And I would especially take such a tone when it comes to the matter of clueless tourons clogging up the escalators.*** If it were up to me, I'd have a continual loop of Holly Hunter yelling, "Stayund to thu' raaaight!!" playing on all of them.
Just sayin'.
(***A sure sign of spring in Your Nation's Capital: Robbo starts his annual bitching about the tourons.)
1
What I never got is the hundreds of people who don't think their Starbucks is in violation of the No Eating or Drinking policy.
Regardless, a more militant voice might be just what's needed. I would get behind the Holly Hunter idea.
Posted by: beth at March 06, 2008 10:03 AM (AwZ3/)
2
I wish that the Tube over here on the other side of the pond would offer some consistency in which way to walk. You see as many "keep right" signs whilst moving down the passageways to the trains as you do "keep left." Not that anyone seems to pay much attention to them either way.
Posted by: Jordana at March 06, 2008 11:45 AM (gEMXU)
First it's deer and rabbits in the garden. Then it's squirrels in the bird-feeder. Then the house is over-run with mice scuttling 'neath the floorboards. Now, for the past three nights, it's a raccoon breaking into the bird-feeder.
In his victory speech last night, Sen. John McCain gave his best wishes to Gov. Mike Huckabee who had, minutes earlier, ended his campaign. He then told a room full of supporters that he looked forward to making “a respectful, determined and convincing case to the American people that our campaign and my election as President, given the alternatives presented by our friends in the other party, are in the best interests of the country we love”.
1
"People who really want to have a good time won't come to a slaughterhouse. And we've got entirely too many troublemakers here. Too many 40-year-old adolescents, felons, power drinkers and trustees of modern chemistry."
A very underrated film. Plus, Kelly Lynch.
Posted by: The Abbot at March 06, 2008 07:17 AM (QBuXz)
Tonight's topic at RCIA class, as we get closer and closer to the Big Day, is going to be preparation for First Confession.
Duh, Duh, Duh, Daaaaaaah!!
I've been fretting about this in a casual way for a few weeks now. Not that I'm not looking forward to it, mind you. The General Confession that is part of the Anglican Eucharistic Rite has always struck me as unsatisfactory, given that it is in the form of a generic liturgy spoken by the entire congregation and specifics are never gone into. Perhaps there are some people who can make a detailed examination of their conscience and full acknowledgment of sin in such a setting, but I'm not one of them. And troof be told, I look forward to the cleansing sensation of having to face my faults on a much more personal level and in front of a pro.
No, what I fret about is simply not being able to remember everything. Mom thinks I'm crazy, and I certainly wouldn't call myself an especially villainous person, but, well, I am 43 after all and life happens. Should I bring an outline? Scribble notes on my shirtcuff? No doubt I will get some answers this evening.
As a matter of fact, I've an idea that I'm going to get tagged for sins of omission much more heavily than sins of commission. Bad news, though, Steve-O. I'm gonna have to fess up about that incident with the bullfrogs, the duct-tape, the gallon of Valvoline and the effigy of Susan Sarandon. (It's not like He doesn't know already, but I'll still need to say something.)
HUGENOT AND PROUD YIPS from Steve-O: Two observations. First, rent a copy of Heaven Help Us. The confession scene with Kevin Dillon says it all. My best advice to you: lie, and add a lie to your list of sins. Because, to paraphrase Dillon's immortal Rooney, the Nuns are going to come and cut yours off if you tell the truth about your last week in College.
Second, don't forget to include stealing a bucket of balls, going to the top of Foss Hill, and driving three woods in the direction of the library. Because that's like a sin on a number of levels. I don't think you were part of the raiding party that stole that statue of the Virgin Mary out of that guy's front lawn on Waverly Ave., so I think you're in the clear on that.
Also, memory seems to recall that you got a kick out of humming "Wang Chung" in the boat on mornings when I was particularly hung-over, so annoying an actual-then member of the Roman Catholic faith? That's gonna cost you.
And, as an editorial comment, The Rite of the Reconciliation of a Penitent begins on page 446 of The Book of Common Prayer, and runs to page 452, occuring right before Ministration to the Sick and after Thanksgiving for a Child.
"Bless Me Father For I Have Over-Gripped And @#($*&#(!!! Shanked It AGAIN!" Yips! Back From Robbo: Ah, that Foss Hill episode. I think the closest I came to damnation was when I almost beaned that guy jogging on the track. Also, I may have swiped the balls, but somebody else stole the shopping cart. And in general, at least I never stood on the roof of a certain frat house trying to lay mashie shots on the roof of a certain radical fembot collective down the hill.
BLESS ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED, BECAUSE I WON'T OFFER SLAVISH SUBSERVIENCE TO MONKISH IGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION YIPS from Steve-O: Mashie? The building in question was a 9 iron at most away, downhill.
No, the closest you came to tarnation was something involving an old easy chair, a pitcher of grain coladas, and a David Bowie mixtape. Oh, and the big jar of fluffernutter you stole from my fridge the same night. I'd always assumed that was for a post-luvin' snack, but if that got used during, well, they're going to make room for you amongst the Albigensians in hell. (That's a spiffy Dante joke if I've got my heresies correct).
TDP? Same week, dude, different set of linens.
And if it was a sin to order 20 Dominoes Pizzas to be delivered to those commies who took over the president's office to hold a hunger strike, then I don't wanna go to heaven.
1
Just don't do what I did at my very first confession, in the Third Grade. You know how little kids like to recite things in a loud, sing-song voice, like when they say the Pledge of Allegiance? Yes indeedy, my sins were on parade, wafting out of the confessional and into the ears of my giggling classmates. Alas, I was never known for having an "indoor voice." Good for starring in "Gypsy", bad for the Confessional.
Posted by: Monica at March 05, 2008 04:54 PM (QL+0Y)
2
Make a list. Be thorough. Keep in mind that venial sins are erased in Communion, so use confession for the more serious stuff. If the venial sins are habitual, then certainly bring them up in confession, because they do, indeed, add up.
For instance -- I had a problem with profanity (loud, colorful, frequent, and occasionally blasphemous) that I used to confess. Oddly enough, when I started praying the Rosary regularly, it went away almost completely. I swear only very infrequently now (I used to border on an Eric Cartman with Tourette's level of profanity (if you saw that episode)).
Another important part of it which is seldom mentioned is forgiving others. I had in my life 3 or 4 people who truly hurt me; and I'll tell you, the Lord was not joking when he said "as we forgive those who trespass against us". I have never felt forgiveness more than after forgiving someone, and simply letting go of old wounds. Do this in advance of confession.
Stuff you forget is forgiven, but if you remember it after the fact, try to mention it next time. You never get all of it; invariably there's stuff you miss, or remember 15 minutes after confession. Don't agonize over it, just save it for next time.
Think of it this way -- Christ has already forgiven it. Confession is just you picking up the gift he has already left for you. He's done the work; we get the benefit just by being honest with him. The sins we confess are the claim check.
Posted by: The Abbot at March 05, 2008 04:58 PM (aDq9f)
3
Even stuff you don't mention is forgiven, so don't go in with a list. Hit the highlights, and tell the priest what you think you need work on and ask for guidance. If there's a glaring pattern, they'll offer it anyway. The Abbot's right: you'll never remember all of it, so do try and bring it up next time if you forget something. Also, learn the Act of Contrition. I'm sure they already covered this in RCIA, but if they haven't, it'll be in the back of the missal. It's usually next to the prayer to St. Michael.
I don't know if they'll give you the choice (some churches don't, simply because they only have old time confessional booths) but I would recommend avoiding Face to Face confession if it's an option. Keep that screen between thee and the priest, as it's a much less daunting process without the priest staring you down.
You'll do fine. And you'll feel SOOOO good when you're done. Your soul will be lighter. It's amazing.
I do, however, want to hear what your penance was. Heh.
Posted by: Kathy at March 05, 2008 07:15 PM (lRxea)
Look, the morning I did it, I thought for sure I was going to be struck down with lightning and if for some miraculous reason I wasn't, then, Mr. P certainly would be...Terrified does not begin to describe the feelings that morning.
However we both emerged, alive and, more important, forgiven.
Now, here's where I'll give you a little hint but don't tell anyone -ok?- be sincere but remember because you were a Protestant and more importantly 'Episcopalian'---sssshhhh this is totally top secret---the Church views you, prior to becoming Catholic--as a wet smack and a total loss-- remember I speak from experience. You are possess what is known as a malformed conscience because the priests in the Episcopal Church teach things (most sincerely too) like life without birth control is unthinkable... abortion is A-Ok...sex outside of marriage is A-Ok, sex with the same sex is better than with the opposite sex...what's adultery? never heard of it? Divorce..why that's what used to happen in Mexico if you didn't drink the water and baptism, hey,that's for those who speak in tongues, etc, etc....
The priest will be so pleased you've had the courage to come to the confessional and participate in the sacrament of reconcilliation. Besides, he's heard everything, you can't surprise him, I think. He will give you great advice and also advice on how to make good confessions. For your penance, you'll probably get 2 or 3 decades, a sincere meditation or something like that because the confessional is not so much about receiving the penance, it's about admiting the errors and saying you won't do it again.
But you will find with some sins you will do them again and you confess to the priest this is a repeat...and then the next time this is a repeat of a repeat. But do be careful, and you must avoid scrupulosity (sp?). That's what took Luther down.
In the begining, I went face to face but found the old fashioned way much more preferable.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at March 05, 2008 07:29 PM (W+Z6c)
5
Robbo: well, enjoy yourself. I just went to confession when on my first retreat in 25ish years, and I have to say it was a good thing.
I may have mentioned this before, but let me give you the Official Secret Decoder Ring Confession Guide that all priests learn when they are in training: the number 3. No, not the Holy Trinity. The third thing that you hear. For some reason, it seems that a typical confession goes something like this: I took the Lord's name in vain, I have been rude to a co-worker, and oh yeah I founded Enron and stole gazillions from widows. So priests learn to just skip the first two and wait patiently for the third.
Now, I'm sure that you're going to be tempted to somehow muck with this system. One obvious way is to start off strong with your first two and watch the padre - by now sitting goggle-eyed and white-knuckled - wait to see what stunning atrocity awaits behind door #3. But many other options abound. FYI, though, it is considered bad form to confess the sins of others - even wayward souls like Steve-O.
Posted by: tdp at March 07, 2008 08:17 AM (7CsBg)
6
Divide it up into categories and try to push through quickly or you'll be there all night.
You could bring a little crib sheet along with just the categories listed so you can stay on target.
Posted by: Babs at March 08, 2008 01:22 PM (iZZlp)
You've already gotten lots of good advice, so that's all I'll proffer myself. I make a habit of going every other week, and yes, I get nervous every time. But what mercy, what kindness I experience in the confessional, and how much lighter my soul feels on leaving!
I much prefer confessing behind a grille, but that option's not available here in France. I'll remember you in my prayers, and am terribly excited for you...
Posted by: Christine at March 11, 2008 08:36 AM (zcqYW)
Born this day in 1947. Here are some stats from Wikipedia:
[A] former right-handed relief pitcher in Major League Baseball who played from 1974 to 1989 for the Pittsburgh Pirates, Philadelphia Phillies and Cincinnati Reds. He was known as a workhorse relief pitcher who led the major leagues in games pitched four times, appearing in 90 or more games three times. He holds the National League record for career innings pitched in relief (1,436⅔, and formerly held the major league record for career relief appearances; his 1,050 career games, all in relief, ranked second in major league history to Hoyt Wilhelm's 1,070 when he retired.
Tekulve and Mike Marshall are the only pitchers in baseball history to appear in 90 or more games more than once......[Tekulve's] best season came in 1979 when he appeared in 94 games, posting a 10-8 won-loss record and 31 saves. He also saved three games in the World Series that year as the Pirates defeated the Baltimore Orioles. He later led the NL in games pitched with 90 in 1987 while pitching for the Phillies at the age of 40. Tekulve owns the career record for most appearances without making a single start. In 1986 he broke Roy Face's NL record of 846 career games pitched; he held the record until John Franco passed him in 2004.
I was a Pirates fan as a kid and watched Tekulve pitch a lot. What I chiefly remember him for, of course, was his crazy submarine pitch, which indeed set up one of my earlier moral dilemmas: how to reconcile the fact that I enjoyed the success of his pitching style while, at the same time, knowing fully well that it Just Wasn't Right.
1
Things that are Just Aren't Right (even if it was the '70s?) in that picture of Kent Tekulve.
The hat
The glasses
The sideburns
The Long sleeved yellow undershirt
The pants
Nothing wrong with the jersey or the results.
Posted by: Badger Chris at March 05, 2008 10:24 PM (ChTWb)
2
I was an admirer of his American league Doplleganger, Dan Quisenberry.
Posted by: The Abbot at March 06, 2008 07:18 AM (QBuXz)
3
Ah yes, I remember 1979. I was all of 10 years old. The Pittsburgh Pirates won the WS, The Steelers won the SB, & the Penguins went bankrupt. Oh well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
This years Pirates will not make the playoffs nor reach .500. That will be 16 years since the Pittsburgh Pirates last had a winning season. A record for a pro franchise.
Posted by: disgruntled Pirate fan at March 07, 2008 07:46 AM (blNMI)
A couple days ago, the Llama blogrolls - left and right - disappeared from my page view on the computer housed in Robbo's Former Fortress of Solitude at Orlge Manor.
This morning, the same thing seems to be happening to the machine in my work cubicle.
Anybody else having this happen to them?
(Oh, yes, I forgot. The spam-filter has been set on "kill" recently, severely hampering commenting around here. Well, do your best anyway.)
OK, my friends. The time has come. You're either in or you're out. You either have a seat at the table or you're going out to eat your dinner on the front porch. Stomp your feet, bang your fists and hold your breath 'til you're blue in the face.
Sit it out in November, if you feel you must.
But the time has come for the rest of us to close ranks. The prospect may be a little distasteful for some, but the alternative would serve to undo all the modest gains of the last twenty-eight years. You have almost eight months to think it over. To let it sink in.
In the meantime, let the Donks rip themselves to shreds.
IT'S ON!
Posted by: The Abbot at March 04, 2008 10:06 PM (QBuXz)
4
The prospect is way more than a little distasteful. There are two points of view on this.
One is the point you make -- the Rep. candidate is better than any Dem. this time around.
But consider this. The Republican machine counts on that point of view. They think they can ignore conservatives completely and that we will knuckle under and accept their candidate.
Blanket amnesty a la Ted Kennedy, for goodness sake! No way. Maybe four years of Obama is just what the Rep. party needs to bring them to their senses. Maybe we can just count on Congress to block too much liberalism until 2012.
5
National Security, the Supreme Court. For those reasons I will vote for McCain.
That, and the little apples like supporting the surge when no other candidate had the stones....
Is McCain my perfect candidate? No (that would have been Phil Gramm, but I digress). But he sure as hell beats Obama & SWMNBN.
Posted by: kmr at March 05, 2008 06:10 AM (3i2Pe)
6
I have a lot of problems with McCain (BCRA, e.g.) but I want a guy in the White House who recognizes that we are in a war against a global enemy, not in a police action* against a few nuts in Afghanistan
We need to send in the Marines, et al., not a SWAT team.
*with apologies to all police officers who have a difficult job.
I still have my bumper sticker from the Phil Gramm '96 campaign.
Posted by: The Abbot at March 05, 2008 10:19 AM (aDq9f)
8
The Republican machine is right- of course we conservatives will rally to the polls for John McCain in November. What McCain has not realized is that it is the conservative base who does things like go door-to-door, man phone banks, and dispense campaign literature. People only volunteer to spend their time and energy on a campaign when they are passionate about a candidate. Bob Dole knows that anti-votes rarely inspire much passion and energy. John McCain needs to seriously develop conservative support or he will be in for a rude awakening in the general election.
Posted by: Adelaide Leitzel at March 05, 2008 01:11 PM (ntc61)
9
I love it when conservatives complain that the Republicans ignore them. Fine, you aren't the only group ignored by the Repubs, and you at least aren't vilified by them most of the time.
Those of us who want smaller government, who want the government to stop interfering in our lives, usually vote Republican, even though the party hates us.
Texas Republicans state - in their party platform - that the US is a Christian country. Should the rest of us vote Democratic then? (Hint without some non-Christian, non-conservative votes, GW Bush would never have been elected.)
So vote for some 3rd party candidate, and enjoy the next 4 years living under the nanny state. And if you think the Congress will stop gun control or higher taxes or more nanny state laws or anything else that the Dems dream up, you're crazy.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 06, 2008 08:47 AM (+gqOq)
, and formerly held the major league record for career relief appearances; his 1,050 career games, all in relief, ranked second in major league history to Hoyt Wilhelm's 1,070 when he retired. Tekulve and Mike Marshall are the only pitchers in baseball history to appear in 90 or more games more than once......[Tekulve's] best season came in 1979 when he appeared in 94 games, posting a 10-8 won-loss record and 31 saves. He also saved three games in the World Series that year as the Pirates defeated the Baltimore Orioles. He later led the NL in games pitched with 90 in 1987 while pitching for the Phillies at the age of 40. Tekulve owns the career record for most appearances without making a single start. In 1986 he broke Roy Face's NL record of 846 career games pitched; he held the record until John Franco passed him in 2004.