WobLog

I've always been in favor of the Santa tradition but had never given it much thought. I have fond memories of Santa from my childhood and wanted to pass that experience along to our kids. Lisa didn't have strong feelings one way or the other, so Santa it is. Yesterday, Rod Dreher started a discussion on whether or not one's family should keep the Santa tradition. One of the commenters linked to a Touchstone piece entitled "Yes, Aquinas, There is a Santa Claus" that addresses the question as St. Thomas Aquinas might. Here's an excerpt:

Therefore, the practice of the Santa Claus tradition is not a lie for two related reasons: First, it constitutes imaginative action that conveys metaphysical truths; second, its intention is not deception, or to lead children into error, but to give them a deeper apprehension of the truth. This it does in three important ways: First, it provides an opportunity to teach children spiritual truths of the faith such as the Communion of Saints, the Church Triumphant, and so forth.

Second, it helps cultivate those imaginative powers in children upon which the depth and richness of human knowledge depend, such as a sense of mystery and wonder, and therefore makes them more receptive to the supernatural mysteries of the faith. Finally, it helps instill in them the moral lesson of selfless giving. Just as St. Nicholas of Myra (Santa Claus) gave gifts in secret, so too, may parents give gifts secretly to their children. Nor is it presumptuous to assume that St. Nicholas approves of this custom of giving secret gifts in his name.

Another commenter pointed to the importance of having an imaginary life at the center of Cervantes' Don Quixote (one of my favorite books; the epigraphs in my dissertation came from this classic):

Sigh. Here it is again, the idea that having Santa (or even St. Nick) constitutes lying to your children.

In the great classic "Don Quixote de la Mancha," Don Quixote lives in a world of his own imagining. But a funny thing happens when he encounters 'normal' people; they find themselves pretending to see and believe in the things he does; they must enter his world in order to communicate with him. In a way, I suppose, they are 'lying' to him by entering into his fairy tales. But if they stay in the mundane world, they can't relate to him at all.

The world of a child is a mysterious and magical place. The blooming of a rose in the garden is an enchanted event beyond all understanding; the weekly arrival of the great noisy garbage truck is anticipated with the fear that it might not happen and the joyous dread that it will. When my oldest daughter, nearly a year old, was brought out of her crib late at night to see the lights on our Christmas tree for the first time, she whispered, "Wow," an as-yet unknown richness in her tiny vocabulary. She said it a lot that first Christmas, as enchantments she'd never dreamed of appeared all around her.

We adults forget the fairy-tale lace that drapes childhood and screens it from so much of the ugliness in the world. It is our privilege at Christmas to attempt to add a little to the embroidery, with our Saint Nicholas and our hidden generosity. We're clumsy at it, no doubt. We're a little like the people in Don Quixote, pretending we see giants and ladies and noble squires instead of the mundane and everyday. But underneath it all, there's a stirring at our hearts, and I think it's then that I understand, a little, what Our Lord means when He says we have to be like little children to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Posted by Don Roberts at 5:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fa La La La La! La La La La!

Despite my best efforts each year to be better organized about getting the Christmas lights up, I always end up on the roof. In the dark. Until about two hours past sunset. Last year, it was because our icicle lights decided to defy statistics and all reach their MTBF (mean time between failure) simultaneously. That caused a delay while Lisa went out to buy new ones.

This year, the "rope lights" that trace our roof-line were about 40% burnt out. My guess is this was a result of removing the cones from our bunya pine last spring. To save wear and tear on our wood shake roof, I decided in years past to leave the rope lights up year-round (unlike the icicle lights, which come down, the rope lights are not very noticeable when unplugged). As the 5 - 10 lb. cones pelted our yard and roof, they no doubt took out some of the lights.

No pictures yet from this year, but here's a shot from last year to give you an idea.

Posted by Don Roberts at 9:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The election of Harry Reid (D, NV) as Senate Majority Leader and the interest in Governor Mitt Romney (R, MA) as a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2008 have resulted in greater attention being paid to the Mormon church (more properly, the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," or "LDS"). Reid and Romney are the two most prominent LDS members in U.S. politics. With attention on Romney in particular, two questions have arisen:

1. Can a Mormon be elected President?
2. Are Mormons Christian?

For a Republican like Romney, who will rely on support from Evangelicals and conservative Catholics, these questions are related. If the answer to Question #2 is "no," it's much harder to see how the answer to #1 could be "yes," at least in Romney's case.

There's been a great deal of discussion of this topic over at the National Review Corner (just search on "Romney" or "Mormon" once the Corner page loads). John Miller links to an essay by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in First Things on the question "Is Mormonism Christian?" Neuhaus notes that there is still an air of impropriety in even posing this question, but he addresses this concern directly:

An Insulting Question

Asking whether Mormonism is Christian or Mormons are Christians (a slightly different question) is thought to be insulting. "How can you ask that," protests a Mormon friend, "when we clearly love the Lord Jesus as much as we do?" It is true that St. Paul says that nobody can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). But that only indicates that aspects of Mormon faith are touched by the Holy Spirit, as is every element of truth no matter where it is found. A Mormon academic declares that asking our question "is a bit like asking if African Americans are human." No, it is not even a bit like that. "Christian" in this context is not honorific but descriptive. Nobody questions whether Mormons are human. To say that Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists are not Christians is no insult. It is a statement of fact, indeed of respect for their difference. The question is whether that is a fact and a difference that applies also to Mormonism.

The question as asked by Mormons is turned around: are non–Mormons who claim to be Christians in fact so? The emphatic and repeated answer of the Mormon scriptures and the official teaching of the LDS is that we are not [emphasis added]. We are members of "the great and abominable church" that was built by frauds and impostors after the death of the first apostles. The true church and true Christianity simply went out of existence, except for its American Indian interlude, until it was rediscovered and reestablished by Joseph Smith in upstate New York, and its claims will be vindicated when Jesus returns, sooner rather than later, at a prophetically specified intersection in Jackson County, Missouri.

Neuhaus reviews the principal differences between LDS beliefs and those of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity, as summarized by the Nicene Creed. He concludes:

Beyond these doctrinal matters, as inestimably important as they are, one must ask what it means to be Christian if one rejects the two thousand year history of what in fact is Christianity. Christianity is inescapably doctrinal but it is more than doctrines. Were it only a set of doctrines, Christianity would have become another school of philosophy, much like other philosophical schools of the Greco–Roman world. Christianity is the past and present reality of the society composed of the Christian people. As is said in the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." That reality encompasses doctrine, ministry, liturgy, and a rule of life. Christians disagree about precisely where that Church is to be located historically and at present, but almost all agree that it is to be identified with the Great Tradition defined by the apostolic era through at least the first four ecumenical councils, and continuing in diverse forms to the present day. That is the Christianity that LDS teaching rejects and condemns as an abomination and fraud.

How this will all play out in terms of presidential politics is anybody's guess. But it's safe to say that there's going to be a lot more conversation about the LDS church in the next two years.

Posted by Don Roberts at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman, a titan in the battle for economic liberty, died last night. The tributes are already rolling in. Here's part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's (CEI) statement:

Washington, D.C., November 16, 2006—The war to advance economic liberty will last forever. The effort is frustrating and often discouraging. Many freedom fighters burn out, retire from the field, become disillusioned, even cynical. Most people grow tired when their efforts are demonized, attacked and ignored. We're all human and we can do only so much.

But one individual never retreated, never retired from the war of ideas – the war to advance individual and economic liberty. A great advocate of liberty, Milton Friedman, died today at 94. To the end, his attention remained focused on seeking ways to clarify the value and virtues of liberty.

John Miller has a roundup of links to news stories on Friedman's death.

And here's CNBC economist Larry Kudlow's tribute:

Ideas matter.

So it is with great sadness to report and mourn the passing of Milton Friedman, whose lifelong writings on the paramount significance of freedom, free-market capitalism, and liberty helped overturn the evil tide of communism and socialism in the 20th century.

His great books Capitalism and Freedom in 1962, which was morphed into Free to Choose in 1980, and subsequently serialized on public television, reached literally tens of millions of people and influenced events in the U.S. and across the world.

He explained to us the failures and flaws in government interference in the economy through overspending, over-regulation and over-taxation.,/p>

He extolled the virtues of free trade.

He explained that the root cause of inflation is excess money creation.

Rather than Keynesian state planning, Milton’s mantra of free markets, free prices, consumer choice and economic liberty is responsible for the global prosperity we enjoy today.

In fact, we take it for granted nowadays, but Friedman’s was a long, uphill battle, fought over decades to persuade politicians and business people that government is the problem, not the solution.

He was a senior advisor to President Ronald Reagan who put these ideas into play during his transformative presidency.

When you look around the world, at newly capitalist economies sprouting up in Russia, Eastern Europe, China and India, you can’t help but see the hand of Friedman.

When you review twenty-five years of virtually uninterrupted prosperity and near zero inflation in the U.S, you can't help but see the hand of Friedman.

Milton Friedman is one of those few people about whom it can be said that he truly left the world a better place.

May he rest in peace.

I'll just add: Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen. (Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. Rest in peace. Amen.)

Posted by Don Roberts at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The kids and I spent a day living in a third world country in our very own home. The water supply line from the main to our house sprung a leak, and we decided to replace it since the copper had corroded. This meant we were without water for two days, and we got to see what it's like to lack running water. It was a good teaching moment for the kids.

Then, once the water was back on, I guess we were living in a second world country, because we had running water, but it was unsafe to drink since the new pipe had to be soldered into place, and the solder would be in the water for up to three days.

Finally, on that fourth day, we came back to the first world, and we were grateful for all that we have been given to live in such a wonderful country!

Posted by Lisa Roberts at 6:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Amy Welborn posts about the U.S. Catholic Bishops annual conference in Baltimore. Several of her commenters question the near-absence of preacing in the U.S. about contraception, Humanae Vitae, or even JPII's Theology of the Body. Other's recount negative experiences when these issues are addressed. Here's the experience of one priest:

I read with some interest the remarks concerning priests preaching/teaching or not preaching/teaching on contraception. I am reminded of the scene in the film "Mass Appeal" where Jack Lemon addresses his parishoners in tears trying to explain why he did not always preach the truth to them. He said, "I just wanted you to like me!" A great temptation, especially for a man who has given up intimacy of marriage in order to serve the People of God.

I preach the truth of Humanae Vitae at least twice a year. I would prefer not to. I would prefer that people like me. I do so in as gentle and understanding a way as I can manage. People are always angry. The first time I preached on this subject was the first year I was ordained. I was gentle and told them that my love for them required that I share with them the truth. I was physically assaulted after Mass. Fortunately some teenagers were present and restrained the two gentlemen. Afterwards the teens asked me why people were so angry. My only response was that they had been lied to for a very long time.

I would say that if you preach the Gospel and no one ever gets angry then you're probably not doing it right. That thought doesn't make it any easier. I do not condemn my brothers for being silent. It's not commendable but I certainly undertand where it comes from.

I also find it interesting that some who criticize their priests seem to think that if only someone would preach the truth then everyone would believe. If that were true then my work would have been done some years ago. Yes, priests and bishops are sometimes cowardly. Quess what? Sometimes, so are the faithful.

Posted by Don Roberts at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For whatever reason, we've seen a big jump in the number of spam comments on our blog in the last week. The junk filter catches some, but a number have been able to sneak through. At the suggestion of the authors of our blog software, Movable Type, I've switched to a comment policy that requires TypeKey authentication for immediate comment posting. It's really easy to set up a TypeKey account (and it's free). If you prefer not to go that route, you can still post comments, but they'll have to be approved by a moderator (me or Lisa) before they're posted.

Posted by Don Roberts at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I received a comment on the photopost of Sarah's First Holy Communion asking about the symbolism of the white veil and dress. I looked a bit for an official account of the symbolism, then decided to post my own thoughts on it.

Leaving aside the veils for a moment, the white dresses show the innocence and purity of the children, who have just received their first Confession and about to receive Our Lord in Communion for the first time. There is a parallel to the wedding dress, but it is not to symbolize a marriage per se. The girls are not becoming nuns and the boys wouldn't marry Christ, but they are opening their hearts to Jesus, so there is an echo of marriage.

In the old rite, women wore a veil. (Today, many who celebrate the old rite wear a veil, but not all.) In our church, and possibly in the Church pre-Vatican II, girls who have yet to receive are unveiled (again with some exceptions.) So, at least in our church, the young girl receives her veil for the first time for this sacrament. It is a "rite of passage," a sign of a new relationship to Christ.

The idea of the veil for women is very beautiful, and it is related to the veiling of the Eucharist. The Blessed Virgin Mary was the Veil of Christ as she carried him, and all women are called to imitate Mary in faithfulness, charity, and modesty. I have also been told that a woman's beauty is to be veiled to help others focus on the most beautiful Eucharist. (I like the idea that I'm that beautiful!) Then, again, the other very important meaning of the veil concerns acceptance of God's authority, and the willing submission to that authority. This comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) saying that women should have their heads covered. This last reason, of course, is why many women today reject the veil, since they don't like the idea of subordination to men, though in my humble opinion, they misinterpret what subordination means. But perhaps the most important thing to remember is that it is a gesture of reverence for women to be veiled in church in the presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and that is the main reason I wear a veil.

Posted by Lisa Roberts at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

What happened? The best short description I saw was this:

• Democrats: "Had enough?"
• Republicans: "It could be worse!"
• Electorate: "Let's find out..."

Okay, today's not such a great day to be a Republican. It's not clear whether or not it's a good day to be a conservative (many of the new Democrat freshmen in the House and Senate are moderates or conservatives). My guess is, since the Democrat leadership is so far-left liberal, today is not a good day to be a conservative, either. Time will tell.

Either way, this is not a time to despair. For one, it's a sin. Second, as Rush pointed out in the first segment of his show this morning, that attitude basically means you've given in to the notion that what the governement does determines whether or not you can be happy. That's just nonsense.

Do I think the midterm results aren't important? Of course not. For the troops in the field in Iraq and for the stability of the area, what happens now is vital. The Republican minority needs to ensure that 2007 isn't a repeat of 1975.

Posted by Don Roberts at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Courtesy of Mallard Fillmore:

Posted by Don Roberts at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This morning, Sarah and Alex decided to pretend they were the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph. They had spent much of the morning running away from Herod (played by me) after being warned by an angel (Grandma) to flee to protect Jesus. I found them later (as Mommy, not as Herod) sitting on Sarah's bed. Alex picked up the toy phone.

Alex: Mary, it's for you.
Sarah: Who is it?
Alex: Herod.
Sarah: (Pause) I don't wanna talk to him!

Then they decided it would be a good idea to pray to God to help escape Herod's clutches. So they both kneeled on the bed facing Sarah's crucifix, and Sarah (still as Mary) began her prayer, "Hail Mary, full of grace..."

Posted by Lisa Roberts at 9:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week, Amy Welborn noted an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required) on the progress of the cause for sainthood of Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

Officials at the Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Foundation hope to finish preparing their case within a year. The whole process, which began in 2003, could cost up to $1-million, and it could be five years before there's a St. Fulton. But Father Apostoli is hopeful. Sheen was named a "servant of God" on the day his application arrived. And Pope John Paul II twice urged the Sheen Foundation to hurry up with the sainthood bid.

Strategywise, Father Apostoli notes that it is crucial to gather both positive and negative testimony, to prevent any surprises at the sainthood oral exams. In Sheen's case, the negative will include references to his posh lifestyle — he did not exactly dress like St. Francis, having worked in a haberdashery as a seminary student — and the jealousy he aroused in other men of God.

More troubling is an allegedly fake doctorate. Reportedly tired of lecturing to freshmen at Catholic University, Sheen applied at one point to teach older students. In the process, a hitherto unmentioned — and so-far undocumented — Ph.D. from the Pontifical College Angelicum, in Rome, materialized, miraculously or not, on Sheen's CV. He got the job.

Eighty-some years later, accounts of the incident differ. Backers claim that Sheen's not mentioning the degree earlier was proof of his humility. Others say the alleged forgery was common academic ambition. In the end it probably won't make a difference. Saints are human and have flaws, says Father Apostoli. He cites the postulator working on Mother Teresa's canonization, who advised the Sheen supporters: "Don't try to prove he was a saint all his life. Just prove he was a saint the last 15 years."

Anyone familiar with Archbishop Sheen's program "Life is Worth Living," which can be seen on EWTN and TBN, knows what a powerful speaker Sheen was. HIs observations on the poisonous aspects of modern culture, and how faith in Christ can help us confront these threats, still ring true today. I look forward to the day when we can say, "St. Fulton, Pray for Us!"

Posted by Don Roberts at 9:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

On Sunday, October 29, Sarah and three of her friends made their First Holy Communion in the Traditional Latin Rite at our parish church, St. Margaret Mary, on the Feast of Christ the King (in the Old Calendar). My parents joined us for Mass, Lisa's parents gave Sarah her dress, and Sarah's Godparents provided her veil (which her Godmother, "Aunt" Jen Ahern, made). Sarah was a perfect angel throughout Mass (a nearly two-hour High Mass with Exposiiton and Benediction), and clearly understood the importance of the occasion. I was, and am, very proud of her. Here are a few pictures from the day.

Update: I've re-sampled and color-corrected some of the pictures so that they're a little sharper and more consistent in color.

Posted by Don Roberts at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)