bearing blog

bearing blog


bear – ing n 1  the manner in which one comports oneself;  2  the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~];  4  pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation;   5  the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].

  • Ann Althouse commenters rock. And do show tunes.

    Ann Althouse, she who was quoted in the New York Times saying blogging is fun, throws her commenters a puzzle (I said such-and-such, can you guess the context?) and they run with it.  (Wait, can you run with a puzzle?)

    Some of them seem to have forgotten the original post:

    Scalia!
    I just read a judge named Scalia,
    Despite what I have found,
    my land may not belong to me!

    Scalia! I just read a judge named Scalia,
    His arguments were sound,
    But still they may take away my property!

    I had to cover my mouth to keep from embarrassing myself in the coffee shop.  Read the whole thing.

    —

    |

    No comments on Ann Althouse commenters rock. And do show tunes.

  • “Home-schooling is sort of like a college student’s virginity…”

    "…People figure it’s a mark of religiosity, but nearly as often it’s just personal taste, or a lack of better options."

    From OpinionJournal, in an article subtitled "Home-schoolers of all stripes find common ground in some good, old-fashioned books."

    One thing that his most popular books had in common, Mr. [Pat] Farenga[, who used to run a home-schooler’s bookstore,] says, is that they tended to be "about kids . . . figuring things out for themselves. Not like ‘Sesame Street,’ with adults showing children how to do things." Mr. Farenga cites the popularity among home-schoolers of C.S. Lewis’s "Chronicles of Narnia," both a seminal epic by a great Christian apologist and an adventure tale of self-sufficient children, with their parents conspicuously absent.

    Read it, it’s good.  Via Auntie Suzanne, who, by the way, likes our cooking.

    —

    |

    No comments on “Home-schooling is sort of like a college student’s virginity…”

  • I’m a cheater.

    Exchange between Mark and me, last night:

    Me:  Hey, you’re reading my book.

    Mark:  So?

    Me:  That’s the reason I keep accumulating piles of books on my table.  You take them.

    Mark:  Oh, that’s the reason, is it?

    Me:  Um, yes, something like that, anyway.

    Mark:  You know what the real reason is?  You cheat on your books, that’s why.

    Serial monography, maybe?

    —

    |

    No comments on I’m a cheater.

  • Glass chalices and sex abuse.

    Domenico at Bettnet, along with the National Catholic Reporter, makes a good point:

    While the matter of what chalices are made of or what pronouns to use are objectively important in their place, if we can’t stop priests from molesting kids and bishops from protecting those priests, why bother?

    It’s a matter of perspective, says Domenico:

    …arguing over those questions should take a back seat to the very real problem of the scandal of priestly and episcopal malfeasance.  When measured against each other it can seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Good point.  I haven’t commented very much on the abuse scandal, and I should probably try to — that is, when I have something to add to the conversation.  Nonetheless, these words from the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:21) are trustworthy:

    …His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’   

    Context?  The parable is found immediately after the parable of the ten virgins (five foolish, five wise — the foolish ones fail to prepare and get locked out of the wedding, the wise ones prepare and are welcomed) and immediately before what C. S. Lewis called "the frightening parable of the sheep and the goats" (in which one’s salvation depends entirely on corporal works of mercy).  The message of this chapter moves from the self outward:  Prepare yourself wisely.  Serve your master faithfully.  Serve the world generously. 

    The thing that bothers me about the chalices and other small matters is, precisely, their smallness. 

    Bishops looking the other way while priests abused children and adolescents:  a big problem of disobedience, with a huge amount of inertia — it takes a big, big push for multiple bishops to turn around, submit to obedience, surely the first steps in solving the problem.  (I do not mean holding committees to draft working documents of reconciliation.  The first step that will really  move us in the right direction is confession, repentance, penance, restitution:  from the bishops themselves, every one who knowingly let this happen and every one who remained willfully ignorant.  Maybe they’ve all, already, done so;  I hope so.)

    Bishops shuffling glass chalices around on the altar:  a small matter of disobedience (and disobedience it is).  But so easily turned around!  So easy to return to obedience, quietly and without public comment.  All it takes is to wake up one morning and say to oneself:  By gum, I’m going to dust off the metal chalices in the back of the sacristy cupboard and use those when I say Mass today!   Goodness, let’s not even worry just yet about, say, reminding the pastors of the parishes in the diocese that glass isn’t allowed, let alone enforcing it.  I mean simply doing it yourself, when you say Mass.  We old-fashioned types call that "setting an example." 

    Perspective — the very same perspective that Dom et al. ask for — demands that we note that becoming faithful in small matters is much more easily done than becoming faithful in large matters.  The opportunity to repent of a small thing and to become faithful in a small thing is truly a great one, a generous gift of an opportunity, a chance to "take Heaven by a trick of love," to paraphrase Ste. Therese. 

    What a gift!   If God gives us such an easy way to be faithful and we don’t take it and use it wisely, what will He say to us?   The moral of the parable of the talents is  For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.  Maybe it would be better to look to a related parable, the parable of the faithful steward (Luke 12:42-48):  Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

    We have no guarantees  that a person who is faithful in small matters will execute larger responsibilities well.   (The logical corollary to this truth is called, ironically, the Peter Principle.)  But it’s those persons who are entrusted with large matters, for the simple reason that the other people have proven themselves faithless in small matters, and why on earth would we want to keep on trusting them? 

    Small matters, matter.

    —

    |

    2 comments on Glass chalices and sex abuse.

  • Cinnamon buns.

    I like cinnamon buns.  They are my favorite pastry.  But I do not eat them often, nor feed them to my children, despite the fact that my husband, for a living, compels robots to make them, or something like that.  He WILL NOT BRING THEM HOME to us, though.  He brings chocolate chips aplenty.  I do not like chocolate chips.

    On that note, here’s something I read in the breed ’em and weep archives that rang true, not just because of the cinnamon buns, but because I routinely say completely illogical things like this.

    “IF YOU CAN’T BEHAVE AFTER A CINNAMON BUN,” I heard myself say, “THEN YOU WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER HAVE ANOTHER CINNAMON BUN AGAIN, AS LONG AS YOU LIVE.”

    …“Why?” she asked, suddenly worried.

    “Because you can’t handle them,” I said. …

    “Because a cinnamon bun has too much SUGAR and when you have too much SUGAR, you stop behaving, and THEN you start twirling, and THEN you start falling in front of SPEEDING CARS, and then you get RUN OVER, and they KILL YOU and you’re DEAD. You will DIE if you have another cinnamon bun, and as a family, we can’t afford that. No more cinnamon buns, EVER. Do you understand me?”

    Maybe this is why I am not allowed to have cinnamon buns.

    —

    |

    No comments on Cinnamon buns.

  • Legion.

    Every time I click a link that sends me to Waiterrant, I’m impressed.  Here’s yet another.

    H/T Fructus Ventris.

    —

    |

    No comments on Legion.

  • Jesus, Mary, and the rest of us: Four quotes from the Gospel of John.

    OK, so bear with me in this one assumption:  When in the Gospels, Jesus interacts with an unnamed someone, that person is a sort of "universal" who represents us.   That is, Jesus interacts with — speaks with — teaches — us Christians throughout history, through that person.

    Now.  Four exchanges that have a certain symmetry:

    The mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."

    His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."

    [H]e said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son."

    [H]e said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother."

    That’s John 2:3, John 2:5, John 19:26, and John 19:27, respectively. 

    What do all of these utterances have in common?  Well, all of them involve Jesus, Mary, and unnamed other individuals. 

    • MARY speaks to JESUS concerning INDIVIDUALS (the wedding party).
    • MARY speaks to INDIVIDUALS (servers) concerning JESUS.
    • JESUS speaks to MARY concerning an INDIVIDUAL (the unnamed — even though we say it is John — disciple).
    • JESUS speaks to AN INDIVIDUAL (the same disciple) concerning MARY.

    If you accept my assumption, then these utterances represent

    • MARY speaking to JESUS concerning US.
    • MARY speaking to US concerning JESUS.
    • JESUS speaking to MARY concerning US.
    • JESUS speaking to US concerning MARY.

    The utterances occur during two events that bracket Jesus’s public life:  the first miracle, and the Crucifixion (the latter conversation happens, literally, between Him on the Cross and the others standing on earth).  So what are these utterances?

    • She tells Him of our plight, more obvious to her than to us:  They have no wine.
    • She tells us:  "Do whatever He tells you."
    • He tells her:  Behold, your children.
    • He tells us:  Behold, your mother.

    Herein is the whole story of our relationship with the Mother of God. 

    At Cana:  She, perceptive, asks her son to notice us.  Isn’t it likely that He, too, had noticed the wine was almost out?  Maybe the They have no wine is more than a simple declaration, implying pointedly:  Aren’t you going to do something about it?  Given His response to her in John 2:4, which is a bit more than, "Gosh, you’re right, Mom," it certainly seems that He took it that way.  So even though He knows of our plight, as well as (or more likely, better than) His mother does, still she tells Him:  They have no wine.  They have need of You.

    She tells us:  Do whatever he tells you.  She points unfailingly to Him.  When we look to her, she points to Him:  He, you servants of another, is the one you must obey. 

    Of course, there’s more to that story.  It has a happy ending:  The servants obey, the water becomes wine, and the bridegroom is unexpectedly pleased.

    From the Cross, Jesus commands Mary:  Behold, your son.  If the disciple is taken to be standing there for us, He is telling his mother, Take all my disciples as your own children.  Adopt them into your heart. 

    And from the Cross, Jesus commands the disciple, and through the disciple, us:  Behold, your mother.  I give her to you as your own.  Honor her, love her, obey her, become her child.  This, of course, brings us full circle, in a way, because to obey Mary — remember what she told us at Cana?  — is nothing more than to obey Jesus.  In everything she does, says, is, Mary tells us to look to her Son.

    This story has a happy ending as well — even before the Ending to end all endings, that is.  I mean, the part that goes, "And from that hour the disciple took her into his home."   The disciple did obey.  And having Mary in his home, at his hearth, in his heart, as his own mother, he had always a voice telling him, "Do whatever he tells you."

    Right after that, the Gospel says, Jesus was "aware that everything was now finished."

    I know that a lot of people think that Catholic devotion to Mary obscures or replaces the devotion due to Christ.  Maybe — maybe — it’s possible to be so devoted to Mary that one fails to honor Christ. 

    But is it?  That is like being so devoted to the command to love one another that one fails to honor Christ, or like being so devoted to the command to go and sin no more that one fails to honor Christ.  As long as we honor her exactly as Christ taught us to — as our mother — we cannot go wrong.  Indeed, that is how the Catholic Church teaches us to honor her.  Combine that mode of honoring with our belief that she is Blessed, a living mother who can hear us and who can pray to God for us, and there is the reason behind all our devotions to her, plain and simply laid out.

    This alone doesn’t contain the rationale for everything we say about her — sinlessness, assumpted-into-heaven, perpetual virginity and the like — but it does go a long way toward encouraging the kind of attitude we have toward her, which many Christians are missing out on through no fault of their own.

    —

    |

    No comments on Jesus, Mary, and the rest of us: Four quotes from the Gospel of John.

  • A good gimmick.

    CIC Bookstore, an online purveyor of Catholic books and religious articles, has a helpful resource for all of us:  the Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan.

    …an outstanding guide to a lifetime of great Catholic reading.

    Pope John Paul II has encouraged us to rediscover the riches of our Catholic faith and to share the message of the Gospel with all we meet. We Catholics can do this principally by living a life of holiness in the ordinary circumstances of our daily lives — holiness inspired and informed by good spiritual reading.

    The 106 books are all available for purchase (natch).    Seriously, though, I took a look at the list and it’s pretty good.  I’d pare it down somewhat, myself.

    —

    |

    No comments on A good gimmick.

  • Ste. Therese would have liked this guy.

    Husbands Anon has discovered the "little way," whether he knows it or not:

    I have discovered the secret to being an adult: Deny your childish urges. I used to think of myself as fairly sophisticated, but as I catch glimpses of myself in action, I realize that that is not the case.

    An example: I usually make everyone’s sandwiches for the day. Why is it, that I catch myself trying to select the ‘best sandwich’, and label it mine? The one with the extra half slice of cheese, or the extra-thick spread? How stupid and selfish is that? The solution, of course, is to either select the best sandwich and make sure that Neen gets it, or else try and choose the best one for myself subliminally.

    If I pick two plates out of the cupboard, and one has a slight smear of dried food that escaped the washing up, I can no longer keep the clean one for myself. I have to either use the slightly dirty one myself, or put it in the sink.

    He kind of makes fun of himself for having these thoughts, but that’s the way to do it.  Of course, it’s better if you don’t advertise to the world what you’re up to. 

    —

    |

    No comments on Ste. Therese would have liked this guy.

  • A great mom-blog.

    Breed ’em and Weep, by Jennifer Mattern.  Where has this one been all my life?

    A good post to start with is this one.

    —

    |

    No comments on A great mom-blog.

  • “Housewarming.”

    Harvest gold in the papal apartments?  Here’s the scoop.  Be sure to read the comments.

    —

    |

    No comments on “Housewarming.”

  • Do they, or don’t they?

    The "We Are Church" movement came out of the group "Call To Action."  Both call themselves "Catholic."  They have always held dissenting views, but in general I respect the right of people to self-identify as Catholic if they have been received into the Church and have not renounced it.

    Now Domenico Bettinelli points to this bizarre press release, aimed at the Catholic synod of bishops dedicated to the Eucharist.

    Insisting – as the Instrumentum laboris does – upon the "Sacrifice of the Cross", "Sacrifice of the Altar" or "Sacrifice of the Mass" actually conveys to many believers the concept of a hurt, angry God, who requires reparations for offenses committed against him. In order to placate God’s wrath, God desires Jesus’ death on the cross.

                In concert with many theologians, we think this "sacrificial" idea should be abandoned. The Eucharistic celebration should instead be presented — as suggested by a careful interpretation of Scripture — as done in memory of the whole of Jesus’ life…

                We equally hope that, while professing the mystery of Eucharist and believing the risen Christ is truly present in it, there should be full freedom in philosophical and theological discussions of this mystery, precisely because Scriptures do not explain the "way" of this "presence". This convergence in claiming the "presence" and maintaining freedom in the explanation of its possible "how" is what was envisaged by the ecumenical agreement achieved in Lima in 1981 in the document "Baptism, Eucharist, Ministries", which was also signed by Catholic theologians.

                The contrary persistence of insisting upon “transubstantiation" dogma to explain Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, as Instrumentum laboris does, triggers and strengthens a magical, materialistic, and legalistic mentality, in which Jesus is seen descending on the altar at the time the priest pronounces the words "This is my body, this is my blood…". That happens at the expense of the invocation of the Holy Spirit, of other holy moments of Eucharist and, obviously, of "convivial" or communal facets.

                Furthermore, we are more than puzzled by every form of devotion, which is usual in the Eucharistic cult (for example, Eucharistic adoration, processions, etc.) in which the sacralization of Eucharist has a plain role, making an idol of the Eucharist….

    I wonder if the members of We Are Church who assent to this statement have actually read it.  The logic escapes me.  Okay, so they are "believing the risen Christ is truly present in" the Eucharist; that’s fine.  So they want to say that no one knows exactly how it is that Christ can be present in it; that’s fine too.  But then, why are they "puzzled by" devotion to the Eucharist itself?

    Now, I can understand why nonbelievers are often puzzled, if not scandalized by Eucharistic adoration.  But:  Why should someone who claims to believe Christ is really in there be puzzled?  Domenico puts it succinctly:  "Duh, you can’t make an ‘idol’ out of God Himself."

    I think that what they really are is embarrassed by devotion to the Eucharist; either that, or the truth is they don’t believe Jesus is really present there, and they’re just saying they believe it — they may think they believe it — to maintain some thread by which they can call themselves Catholic.   I suppose a third possibility is that they don’t believe Jesus is God.   And of course the fourth possibility is that they don’t much care whether their press release actually, you know, makes any sense.

    I don’t suppose "Call to Action" will be renaming itself "Call to Abandon Eucharistic Doctrine" anytime soon.

    —

    |

    No comments on Do they, or don’t they?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

…more to come later