Month: October 2002

Senator with a pants problem
Democrats have affairs, Republicans get divorced. My friend Brian, a Democrat, likes to relate that theory every time a Dem politician is caught with his pants down or a Republican dumps his wife for someone younger (and probably stupider, if she’s willing to marry a man who would dump his wife for another woman.) Brian has an impressive mental list to back up his theory, and I’m beginning to suspect he’s right.
One man who fits the mold is Senator Tim Hutchinson, (R-Arkansas). Unlike former Arkansan William J. Clinton (D-Harlem), Hutchinson wasn’t content to take advantage of a junior staff member. Nope, he had to make an honest little home-wrecker of her. Now he’s married again, and his three sons and wife of almost three decades are left to deal with his sexual incontinence.
Is this a good time to point out that Sen. Hutchinson is an ordained Baptist minister, one who was elected on a “family values” platform?
Voters in Arkansas, who frequently elected Clinton but are still apparently hung up on ancient, pre-Woodstock concepts like marital fidelity, would have probably re-elected Hutchinson but he’s now behind in the polls. I want the Senate to remain in Republican hands, but if the senator is defeated on Nov. 5, I’ll be glad. I guess it’s too much to ask for the state to refuse to rubber-stamp his “lifestyle choices” and grant him a quick divorce and remarriage, but maybe the electorate will administer a shock to the reverend senator.

Christian Stereotypes

In response to an earlier thread, John Schultz asks: “What’s a nice canonist like you reading Stephen King fer?” I admit the guilty pleasure I derive from reading Stephen King novels isn’t from the vulgur language or the occasional descriptive sex scene that one encounters in his novels. In fact, I find both a distrction from his otherwise gifted story-telling. Rather, my weakness for his novels is a little more triumphalist than that. In short, I derive a certain guilty enjoyment from how he always seems to stereotype Protestants as fundamentalist kooks while casting Catholic clergy in his novels as generally intellegent protagonists who, despite their struggle with a personal weakness or two, are devout and likeable. This is even more fascinating when one considers, if I recall correctly, that King is from a Protestant background.

Donald DeMarco gives us a lesson from Tennessee Williams’ play A Streetcar Named Desire: when desire (“I want it”) is divorced from reason, when power operates without check, the culture of Choice becomes a culture of death.

“. In it, I propose seven criteria — four canonical and three pastoral — for evaluating whether something is potentially a legitimate liturgical custom or simply a tacky liturgical gimmick.

The four canonical criteria I propose are:
1) Are the majority of the faithful within the community favorable, or at least not opposed, to the proposed custom? (cf can. 23)
2) Is the practice contrary to the Divine Law? (cf. can 24, par. 1)
3) Is the practice reasonable? (cf. can 24, par. 2)
4) Has the practice been expressly forbidden by the competent legislator? (cf. can. 26)

Additionally, the three pastoral criteria I propose are:
1) In the common estimation of most people, would such a practice be a gimmick to entertain them, or a custom from which they could draw spiritual significance?
2) Is the proposed custom fitting for the community in question?
3) Does the proposed custom facilitate and/or enhance the liturgy, drawing people deeper into the liturgy? Or does it simply draw attention to itself, limiting its appeal to a select few within the community, while leaving the majority of the faithful cold as to its meaning?

Now, excuse me while I return to my research…