Postcards from Hell.

Care to see fascinating snapshots taken on a recent tour of North Korea (yes, they have such things) by a young British doctor?

Of course you do. Take a look. [Warning--takes a long time to load].

Via the perennially-underrated Eve Tushnet.

Need recommendations.

Ye Olde Familie Computer is not long for this world. It is old, slow and showing its age more and more often of late.

I recognize there's a rule coined by sci-fi writer David Gerrold applicable to this discussion. It goes something like this:

"Fast. Cheap. Good. Pick two."

Please violate it. If any of you could point me to a reliable source for fast, good and (especially) cheap computers (new or used) I'd be grateful. Remember--I'm just looking for a computer that has to run a scanner/printer/copier, word processing software, and assorted games, with the possibility of upgrading down the line. I don't need speakers, a monitor or printer, either.

Much appreciated!

Rashomon at the Zoo.

Zach gives his version of the Great Zoo Odyssey at his blog.

He's too kind.

And yes, the last word is, sadly, accurate.

[Evil, chortling laughter. The Stirling Virus spreads!]

The woman who is not there.

Appropriately enough for the month of May, the subject of the greatest discord between Catholics and Protestants has leapt to the fore.

The estimable Dawn Eden stepped on the third rail of Protestant-Catholic discourse in a fine post on the value of chastity, both within marriage and without. Nevertheless, it was her reference to the Blessed Virgin at the end that got the avalanche rolling.

Note that Dawn, as an evangelical with a significant Catholic readership, carefully framed the reference so as to allow for an endorsement by both Catholics and Protestants: the discussion of Mary's chastity is during the timeframe of the earthly ministry of Jesus. I think her point is well-argued, and very artfully posed.

Bzzzt! Not good enough, as the trench warfare demonstrates.

As a convert, it is extremely difficult to explain to cradle Catholics the visceral reaction the subject provokes. At the parish bible study, I've tried over and over to explain this to sensible cradle Catholics of differing ages and backgrounds. Despite my efforts, they are still puzzled.

I'm still sympathetic to the Protestant reaction. The place of Mary within Catholicism was the greatest hurdle to my conversion, and threatened to derail it at one point. [As an aside--there is one contemporary book by a Catholic writer on the subject that should never, ever under any circumstances be handed to an inquirer troubled by the subject, unless you really don't want to ever share a pew with him or her in even the most mystical of senses. I'll name it in the comments box below.]

The honor given to Mary is utterly alien to the Protestant mindset, even the most superficially catechized. "What--?" is the unvarying first reaction. And the consistent reaction for the next hundred times the subject comes up. Mary plays no role in Protestant religious life, the odd ultra-high church Anglo-Catholics aside. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Any but the most perfunctory of references to her detracts from the person of Jesus Christ, and so must be avoided. She is the woman who is not there.

As I said, I am still somewhat sympathetic to this--there are Catholics whose devotion to her sure looks like it passes beyond the far fringes of hyperdulia and reaches the level of latria. Furthermore, they seem unconcerned when excess is pointed out. And the treacly sentimentality is sometimes enough to lead to diabetic shock, even if that sentimentality manifests a significant truth about the relationship between a mother and her children.

Obviously, I got past it. And, ironically, it was "zip/zero/zilch" void that helped me hurdle it. The problem is that the most common Protestant response to the excesses of Catholicism is to offer the most grudging and minimal "respect" possible, heavily larded with qualifiers. After a while, it all sounds like the same set of talking points, reiterated though clenched teeth.

"Of course we honor her. She is our sister in the Lord, and gave birth to Jesus. Yes, that was important. She was the vessel.

But she was a sinner just like the rest of us and doubted him during his ministry and was rebuked by him on numerous occasions and in retrospect she was nothing really special after all because she had other kids so we keep it all in perspective."

You see a lot of this in Dawn's comment thread. In other words, the USRDA of Mary is no more than .5g in a 10,000 calorie theological diet. Even then, you'd better exercise a lot. In reality, she's given considerably less respect than a beloved pastor, exegete or theologian. It was a confrontation with this mindset that finally made it all click.

At the old Catholic Convert Message Board (RIP 2000--the one with the tan background), the free-for-all was briefly graced by a rather vociferous hyper-Calvinist (or perhaps just "hyper" without the hyphen) who went by the nom de guerre of "Riolion." Riolion's claims to fame were (1) being a stern foe of all distinctives associated with Popery, and (2) having been, at one point, a top 500 reviewer for Amazon.com. This latter item was a particular--and peculiar--source of pride to him. If nothing else, I suppose I have to concede that he was especially blessed with free time.

Needless to say, the invariable daily Marian thread at the CCMB was of great interest to him. He was, as many are, a devotee of the "All generations will call me 'vessel'" interpretation of Luke 1:48. Facing down some honest hyperdulia, he jumped in with both wooden-shoe clad Reformed feet, along the lines of:

"Mary was a vessel, nothing more. God, in His sovereign will, could have chosen anyone to achieve the divine purpose of the incarnation of His Son. That He chose her does not make her important. She was a sinner like the rest of us. Jesus did not pay her any particular honor, so no Christian should. The sentimental piety of Catholics regarding her is ludicrous, where not idolatrous."

QED.

Remember, this is a Catholic board. Talk about waving the proverbial red cape in front of a veritable herd of snorting bulls.

"Who knew badgers hated being poked with sharp sticks?" muses man following hand-reattachment surgery.

Leave aside that he wasn't being faithful to his own Reformed (and biblical) precommitments on this one. Lest we forget, we were all selected for our roles by Almighty God from before the founding of the world. In that light, suggesting that Mary was not special despite being chosen as the mother of the Redeemer is as ludicrous as suggesting that God went "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" over a list of the eligible women of Nazareth.

"If she doesn't work out, there's always Tova..."

More stunning to me was that his need to take the wind out of Mariolatry led him to use terms that, if applied to his own mother, would have led to a meeting with pistols at dawn, in a more civilized age. I framed my response thusly:

Scene: Mother's Day at the Riolion residence.

Riolion: "Greetings, Mother. As you know, today is Mother's Day. On this ersatz 'holiday,' I could have stood with the other pagans, baptized or otherwise, and gotten you a card, chocolates, some flowers or other sentimental frippery. But, as you know, I have no truck with that. Instead, I have chosen to recognize the day--and you--for what is truly important.

Mother, I hereby honor you for your essential, Godly function--namely, the bearing of one of God's elect: myself. After all, you, like me, are a sinner. More importantly, God, in his sovereign and omnipotent will, could have chosen anyone--indeed any thing--for this task: another woman, a card table, a wombat or even a cheese log rolled in walnuts. Nevertheless, He did choose you, so I will honor you with a non-idolatrous 'good show!' Enjoy the day, Mother!"

As I said, the blinders of theology were so thick on this one that he spoke of the Lord's mother in a way that he would never tolerate hearing of his own. That's because the woman who is not there has been forcefully ejected from what should be a place of some true honor, even if just to be consistent with other aspects of a genuinely-biblical theology. It was this kind of anti-witness that pushed me to accept the Catholic position. St. Augustine gets far more respect, and he merely bore witness to Jesus in explications of word and sacrament. As Thomas Howard notes, Mary did far more than that--she actually bore and nursed the Word Himself.

The woman who is not there played a role none of the rest of us will ever be privileged to play. I can understand balking at some of the Marian dogmas. What I can never understand is balking at true respect, gratitude, and yes, even love. She deserves far better than that. No mother deserves any less. At least if "honor thy mother" is more than boilerplate.

Progressive Anglicans: "Is it cold in here?"

B-16 has a stiff arm technique worthy of Gale Sayers:

Thus, it was significant that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams attended the inaugural mass for Benedict XVI, becoming only the second occupant of the throne in Canterbury to witness such a rite since the Reformation. Afterwards, the former Oxford don greeted the pope in German and presented him with a pectoral cross.

Ah, yes, but journalists and photographers paid close attention to the precise details of this rite of reception.

"Symbolism is everything," opined David Virtue, a conservative Anglican whose Internet reports circle the globe. "When the new pope met with the patriarchs from the Orthodox churches there were public embraces and kisses, but when Benedict XVI met Williams there was only a handshake. ... Williams edged forward perhaps hoping for a papal embrace but it was not forthcoming."

Keep this in mind whenever you hear of the Pope's willingness to engage in ecumenical dialogue. It will not be of the variety that only doffs the "Kick Me!" placard when he gets in the dunk tank.

Michigan: Where You Can Suffer From Wind Chill and Sunburn On the Same Day.

After months and months of scheduling misfires, the Price and Frey families finally were able to go the Detroit Zoo yesterday. We've been meaning to for some time, but with seven kids and divergent careers and schedules between us, the logistics of the thing have been daunting. Until yesterday, that is.

It was brutally cold in the morning (we met around 11am), but judicious use of the indoor exhibits (the penguinarium and the butterfly house) bought us the time needed for things to warm up outside. The penguins were comparatively listless--apparently they were following the "no swimming an hour after you eat" rule. The butterflies and birds in the tropical set up were better, with the repeated refrain of "they're coming right at us!" punctuated by the delighted cries of my son, who was the focus of brief, but intense interest by one of the butterflies.

The delightful Freys' children were perfectly well behaved, with their Rachel (thanks for letting the naming right go back into the public domain, btw) quickly befriending Madeleine. Ours were fine, too, until right near the end, when the two oldest experienced a chain reaction of fatigue-induced meltdowns. Barking Dad started to make an appearance, but it's difficult to be angry with tired toddlers. Difficult, but not impossible.

What did I learn at the Zoo?

(1) It's big. I re-learn this every visit. With toddlers, it turns into an exercise in cat-herding.

(2) Madeleine likes giraffes most of all. Giraffes are waaaaaaaaay toward the back of the zoo. See Toddlers, Tired, supra.

(3) Dale likes peacocks. He'd very much like to catch one. Peacocks do not enjoy being chased by toddlers.

(4) Rachel has formed no firm opinion as to a favorite animal as of yet.

(5) If jacuzzi jets existed in the wild, seals would never move. True story--we saw a seal in the Arctic Ring of Life exhibit (it's very cool--you walk under water and can see the critters through plexiglass) swimming with its head two feet in front of the water circulator. Watching its face blubber flap in the current was one of the highlights of the day.

(6) Gorillas are cooler than chimps. The latter had stagefright and/or narcolepsy. The silverbacks were ready for primetime. One of them strode up to the viewing window, extended its massive arms to either side of the glass frame, and looked straight in at us. It then purposefully gamboled off, as if to say, "That'll give 'em a thrill."

(7) I'm getting older. I was in bed by 9:30.

Still, a good time had by all.

D**n it, Todd, go to the doctor.

Via Aristotle, we learn that Todd's blogging absence has ended, but with a disquieting health update:

Fingers don't turn green on their own. [Scroll down to Tis the Season to Disinvite.]

He could use your prayers. Even--maybe especially--exasperated ones.

The Benedictine Neo-Inquisition Claims Yet Another Victim.

TODD HAS NOT POSTED IN FOUR DAYS.

Who will be next?!

[Copyright notice: I hereby lay claim to the coining of the term "Neo-Inquisition." Henceforth, all uses of the term must acknowledge the source.

After all, everybody digs the "neo-" prefix. Traditionalists, progressives and pretty well everyone in between. Consequently, the term "Neo-Inquisition" will be a big hit. Just you watch.

That is all.]

Upon further review.

The situations of Frs. Fessio and Reese (Car-di-nal Fang!) truly aren't comparable.

In order for them to be truly equivalent, the CDF would have to, in addition to Fr. Reese, fire two prominent staffers at America, appoint Michael Matt as the new executive editor and fold the magazine in with The Remnant, albeit leaving the original name intact. Then Fr. Reese would have to be barred from any association with a successor magazine set up by disaffected America staffers and subscribers--hard as it is to imagine such displeasure on the part of the latter two parties. All of this being done before Fr. Reese was sent off to a hospital chaplaincy in Appalachia, of course.

That's the real analogy here, and one that makes the collective pants-wetting seen in the Boston Globe article even more hilarious.

I don't get it.

I understand that the media has decided to run with the story of the sacking of a prominent American Jesuit from a position of influence by higher-ups within the order itself. I certainly agree that it is fascinating and newsworthy--the story of tyrannical clericalist Jesuits silencing those beneath them who disagree with their rigorous dogmatism is something that deserves scrutiny.

So, while I'm gratified that it has finally become news, I'm baffled because the timing is odd.

After all, the silencing and exile of Fr. Joseph Fessio and his supporters happened over three years ago. Fr. Fessio has moved on to other things since, and his supporters have taken jobs with other institutions.

Still, the overdue interest of mainstream media in this dispute is welcome, indeed. At last--the tyrants who engaged in this shameful deed will finally be exposed.

Then there were three.

I have been reminded that Mr. Rubb was subjected to multiple insults himself, which is more than a technical violation of the rule. I apologize for that. Let me clarify what is, and is not, an insult in these parts:

Insult: "You are stupid."

Not an insult: "That idea/comment/argument/claim/etc. is deeply, devoutly, irredeemably stupid."

If it's not clear, think about it. Let's try to slice and dice the ideas, not the person. But again, this is much more a factory floor than a salon, so expect the occasional bruised ego. They heal.

Moreover, I now have a functioning email address and some information confirming that we are dealing with a full-orbed human being, and no spammer. Religion: "raised Catholic," but long since gone, has problem with authoritarian institutions. Other personal info far beyond what was asked for was also provided, but I'll leave that up to him to reveal.

In other words, the ban is lifted.

However, the topics will remain what I want to talk about, thank you. The communion story I deleted was interesting, but not germane, even tangentially. I think Amy Welborn's "agenda rule" remains a good one: If you really feel that passionately about an unrelated issue, blog it yourself.