Addendum to the Rules for Social Media...

Earlier this week the USCCB provided a blog post on the The Gospel and Social Media. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf generalized the blog post into a list of rules. I provide the condensed list to combat white space. Emphasis mine:

1. Translate church teaching. [Know your audience, Don't fall into heresy while attempting to 'translate'. Popular speech does not always convey the sacred.]

2. Avoid church speak. [Know your audience. Some words cannot be replaced without changing the meaning of the message. Some people will find offense no matter how you attempt to phrase innocent honest speech.]

3. Use images, as Jesus did. [Know your audience. It is good to imitate Christ. I don't remember Jesus ever making things less clear with His explanations, but He certainly knew His audience.]

4. Understand that social media is social. [Um hmm...]

5. Social media sometimes calls for a suit of armor. [See #4]

6. Use the delete button if comments cross the line of decency, but, hopefully, not often. [comment deleted]

7. Spread Catholicism’s fun parts. ['Fun parts' or what might be known as the 'treasures of our faith'. For example, share lives of the saints that inspire virtue. Be sure not to treat adults like children.]

8. Remember rules are changing. [This certainly sums it up.]

9. Remember web messages live forever. [Not to be confused with being naked. It is true, don't sin on the internet, or at all for that matter. On a side note, someone should let our Holy Father know that the pictures of him hoisting a beer are still floating around the internet.]

10. Keep it short. [There is supreme value in being able to take that which provides complex philosophical ponderings, and reduce it to only the critically essential; therefore, remembering the ideals of briefness to which we subscribe, let us make every effort to curtail our words, our sentences, in short, our very paragraphs, that both the former and the latter may be quickened for the sake of our dear reader, his friends, and co-workers.]

While reading the comments on Fr. Z's post, I came across an addendum to the rules written by Jason Pascucci. I find the additional rules less obvious, but specific and practical for use by the Catholic social media users. Again, emphasis is mine.

11. Don’t eviscerate the truth in an attempt to be popular. It is the hard parts and hard sayings of being a follower of Jesus are what make it compelling to the soul.

These two go together:
12a. Avoid respect of persons.
12b. Ignore people who say “judge not lest ye be judged” as if it covered all criticism. We’ve been instructed to “judge with right judgement”. As with Aquinas, above: look for causes rather than at persons.

13. All heresy begins in disproportion of related truths. Avoid being disproportionate. Being silent on a topic which ought to be spoken of is a sin of omission against truth, if you are in a position to speak rightly and fully.

14. Niceness is not a Catholic virtue, indeed it is opposed to such. Kindness is, as is gentleness and longanimity, which are fruits of the Holy Spirit. Know the difference between those and 'nice'’.

15. Avoid adhering to those who gain approbation from "the world" or are lionized by it: chances are very high they are doing something wrong. If they are hated by “the world”, chances are they’re more reliable. It’s not an infalliable guide, but you’ll go less wrong.

16. The enemy of your enemy is probably not your friend, as it’s very possible to error on both extremes.

These two go together:
17a. Don’t mess with people who cite the Fathers, the Councils, and the Saints as authorities. Chances are, they’re right. Indeed, when dealing with other Catholics, do use this form of "Church speak".
17b. Conversely, people who quote a lay or Jesuit theologian from the last century as an authority on any topic are probably wrong. Don’t do that.

18. There is a licit range of theological opinion on many topics pertaining to the Faith. Sometimes it's wider, but these days, it’s usually vastly narrower than the range generally presented. (Pro-tip: "Tantamount to heresy" is not within the licit range.)

19. The roots of the 'liberal/conservative' split lie in modern philosophy. They are both wrong, because modern philosophy is profoundly broken. GBTA (Get back to Aristotle).

20. Don’t be humble because it is becoming and makes a good and attractive outward appearance. Be humble because you’re a sinner and too often a complete doof.

21. Don’t do theology in a state of serious or mortal sin: your mind is darkened by your illicit acts. Go to confession. They aren’t kidding about this stuff.

22. Avoid intellectual mollities: don’t overreact to the presentation, make sure you understand the heart of the matter.

For more content from Mr. Pascucci, please visit his blog: "Ex-Couchthedra"

Unwise comment on condoms.

I had the courtesy to thumb through a close friend's copy of Light Of The World this evening to read the English translation of the well talked about Pope Benedict XVI quote for myself.

From Chapter 11, "The Journeys of a Shepherd," pages 117-119:

**On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.**

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

**Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?**

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The last sentence of the quote... the answer to "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?" is unfortunate. A simple answer of "No that is not what I am saying." seems to be a wise place to start the answer. Even a person who has the Faith in the teachings of the Church to bolster them up has a hard time reading this last sentence as an answer to the question asked. It is difficult to say if this is a translation problem, a publisher problem, or just an unfortunate answer.

I can hardly get a web log post to come out right after I have proof read it multiple times. I can't imagine having an intellectual conversation during an interview and expect to keep nuanced conversation clear and straight forward.

Pope is pro-condom?!

Of course not.

[Our Holy Father] uses the example of prostitutes who might use prophylactics as a first step toward moralization, that is, becoming moral. In such a case, condom use might be their first act of responsibility to redevelop their consciousness of the fact that not everything is permitted and that one cannot do everything one wants.

It goes to show... the secular media just prints what it wants to believe. L'Osservatore Romano has posted some information on the Holy Father's upcoming book. I do not read Italian, but here is a direct quote from L'Osservatore Romano followed by a google translation.

Concentrarsi solo sul profilattico vuol dire banalizzare la sessualità, e questa banalizzazione rappresenta proprio la pericolosa ragione per cui tante e tante persone nella sessualità non vedono più l'espressione del loro amore, ma soltanto una sorta di droga, che si somministrano da sé. Perciò anche la lotta contro la banalizzazione della sessualità è parte del grande sforzo affinché la sessualità venga valutata positivamente e possa esercitare il suo effetto positivo sull'essere umano nella sua totalità.
Vi possono essere singoli casi giustificati, ad esempio quando una prostituta utilizza un profilattico, e questo può essere il primo passo verso una moralizzazione, un primo atto di responsabilità per sviluppare di nuovo la consapevolezza del fatto che non tutto è permesso e che non si può far tutto ciò che si vuole. Tuttavia, questo non è il modo vero e proprio per vincere l'infezione dell'Hiv. È veramente necessaria una umanizzazione della sessualità.

Concentrate on condom means trivializing sexuality, and this trivialization is precisely the reason why so many dangerous and many people do not see sexuality as an expression of their love, but only a sort of drugs that are administered by itself. So the fight against the trivialization of sexuality is part of a great effort to ensure that sexuality is perceived and can exert its positive effect on the human being in its entirety.
There may be individual cases warranted, such as when a prostitute using a condom, and this may be the first step toward a moralization, a primary responsibility to develop a new awareness of the fact that not everything is permitted and which can not be do everything you want. However, this is not the proper way to overcome the infection of HIV. You really need a humanization of sexuality.

Other links of interest:
-The Pope did not endorse the use of condoms
-Condoms, Consistency, and the Vatican’s Crisis of (mis)Communication

Ineffability

To quote the wiki:

...ideas that cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words (or language in general), often being in the form of a taboo or incomprehensible term. This property is commonly associated with philosophy, aspects of existence, and similar concepts that are inherently "too great", complex, or abstract to be adequately communicated. In addition, illogical statements, principles, reasons, and arguments are intrinsically ineffable along with impossibilities, contradictions, and paradoxes. Terminology describing the nature of experience cannot be properly conveyed in dualistic symbolic language; it is believed that this knowledge is only held by the individual from which it originates. Obscene profanity and vulgarisms, however, can easily (and clearly) be stated – but they simply should not be and so are still considered ineffable.

Enough said...

Parts of the Liturgy are just pious claptrap?!

Claptrap - Noun: Absurd or nonsensical talk or ideas.

Words like "claptrap" in the same sentence with "Liturgy" set off my quizzical brow (aka "The Darcy") almost immediately.

In recent months lots of talk and commotion has taken place in regards to the New "Corrected" Liturgical Translation. There has been talk of how extra words are added that do not come from Sacred Scripture.

The following related web logs address this well: "Precious chalice or cup?" and "The Savior's chalice is forever precious and His hands are ever sacred"

Words that Matter

I am by no means a master of the English language. (A bit of the opposite actually.) However, I have noticed on numerous occasion how my improper word usage can put a halt to what would have been fluid communication.

Word usage is so important in the Sacraments that they can effect whether or not the Sacrament is "valid and licit."

During the Consecration the form is "This is my Body... This is my Blood..." changing that to what may seem like an equivalent meaning "This is my flowing life force..." can most certainly lead to an illicit if not an invalid Sacrament.

This must also be taken into account when dealing with translations. Often times translating from one language to another, there is not an equivalent word. Great insight is necessary to preserve meaning and usage of that which is being translated.

New 'Corrected' Translation

I think semantics are more important than what most people realize. Often during a conversation where a disagreement is taking place, one party will intend to deflate the others argument by essentially saying 'That concept is not important because it is only about word usage.' It is true that on many occasions semantics can get in the way of having a meaningful conversation. It should be noted however that semantics can also be used to completely change the way we think and react to the subject being discussed.

The following web log highlights an interesting point in regards to the New Translation: A Semantic Proposition

I think it is worthwhile to think about how semantics effect the Liturgy of the Mass.