The other day I was going to play the “quotes” meme. I looked through and all the quotes I found ended up having significant holes in them. One was along the lines of “I often have regretted what I have said, but I have not regretted silence.” At first that sounded pretty appealing. Then I remembered some of the times I should have spoken up, but didn’t.

That happened to me again the other day. I was at a small party with a broad mix of people. One of the other guests was a priest who no longer has faculties (it’s a long story best left elsewhere). For reasons I can’t quite discern, this particular fellow is held in very high esteem by many of the other guests at the party. The conversation turned to things Churchy and the PWNLHF made some sensible comments on people’s deportment during Mass and some less sensible comments about some well-known speakers he hopes to get invited to speak at various locations in Denver. Then he turned and said (a slightly inexact quote), “You know, the Sacrament of the Sick includes a full remission of all sins. It’s so much better than having to ‘fess up all that stuff!”

I knew that, while there was a grain of truth there, this seemed to be a pretty gross misapplication of the reasoning behind the remission of sins in the Sacrament of Anointing. Upon getting home from the party, I checked the CCC and found pertinent passages as follows:

1532 The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:
. . .
- the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;
1517 Like all the sacraments the Anointing of the Sick is a liturgical and communal celebration, whether it takes place in the family home, a hospital or church, for a single sick person or a whole group of sick persons. . . . . If circumstances suggest it, the celebration of the sacrament can be preceded by the sacrament of Penance

And, most pertinently,

1497 Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church.

As I had suspected, the PWNLHF had, at a minimum, seriously fudged as regards this alternative means of absolution.

It makes sense that there would be a provision made for those who are suddenly ill or injured who do not have the opportunity to confess their sins. Sadly it is no surprise that we see people misapplying this exception to the ordinary practice to try to subvert the practice some see as too harsh.

For instance, in 1930 the Anglicans declared: “Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.” . . . “The Conference further records its abhorrence of the sinful practice of abortion “ . . . “Sexual intercourse between persons who are not legally married is a grievous sin. The use of contraceptives does not remove the sin. In view of the widespread and increasing use of contraceptives among the unmarried and the extention of irregular unions owing to the diminution of any fear of consequences, the Conference presses for legislation forbidding the exposure for sale and the unrestricted advertisement of contraceptives, and placing definite restrictions upon their purchase.”

Within a few short years, this attempt at a nuanced exception to a general practice had become a widespread embrace of all the excesses of the sexual revolution by the leaders of Anglicanism.

One of our society’s defining tendencies – obsessing over the case for every potentially-valid exception to a rule and then getting the exception to consume the rule entire.

In my most recent post I mentioned a murder trial that’s received a degree of internet attention. The void between the recent mistrial and the upcoming second trial is being filled with some revealing commentary at various sites.

The commentary isn’t about the events that led to the death of the victim, the testimony or rulings in court, or even the social issues raised by the alleged crime.

The defendant’s brother-in-law has long been a fixture on Usenet, so it isn’t surprising that he’s said some things that have made people mad – in some cases justifiably so. He’s absolutely certain of the defendant’s innocence, so much so that he has alleged an elaborate conspiracy on the part of law enforcement.

The main pro-prosecution blogger has written about other domestic violence cases in the past, as well as various other topics. While she refrains from conspiracy theories regarding the case, she clearly subscribes to many completely deranged political conspiracy theories.

The two sides engage in vicious attacks on each other based not so much on what they say, but on their associates.

These illustrate larger trends.

Many of the most popular movies and TV shows are about conspiracy theories, as are a great many purportedly non-fiction books. It’s actually getting to the point where much of pop-culture – even that masquerading as journalism – is overshadowed by these baroque monuments to paranoia. Some of the theories are even taken seriously by people who ought to know better.

The venom behind the increasing frequency of political insults (from “demonrats” to “Christianists”) increasingly reflects a split that’s nasty, but where the difference between the two sides can often be hard to discern. Our culture dehumanizes others whom we encounter less and less as complete people and more and more as "the jerk in the brown pickup truck", "that blogger" or the face on the TV screen.

People flee to fantasy and to extreme emotion when they are trying to avoid unpleasant facts.

Between the wars in the world today, epidemic diseases, the breakdown of social order, a more rapidly changing economy, the speed and ubiquity of information, there is much to provoke discomfort. People who have fewer close friends and smaller and more scattered families than their parents had may consequently feel more isolated and vulnerable.

More importantly, people must believe in something bigger than themselves – even if that something is an impossible conspiracy. We who are in the Church have failed to get the message out about The One Whom we all ought seek. The sickness will worsen until the cure begins.

Crime and Punishment

I’m tangentially acquainted with the defendant in this very sad criminal case.

Short, neutral description of the facts of the case:
- boy meets girl;
- boy shacks up with girl;
- girl gets pregnant;
- girl decides to keep baby against boy’s wishes;
- boy leaves girl;
- girl eventually tries to obtain child support;
- boy resists until results of paternity tests arrive, by which point he’s already shacked up with an entirely different girl;
- boy conditions payment of child support on getting visitation rights;
- during a paternal visit, child (who is now just five years old) falls off a cliff into the ocean and dies.

The defense claims it was a case of a clueless dad taking his daughter to a dangerous spot and failing to keep a close enough eye on her. The prosecution claims the defendant planned to kill the little girl to get out of paying child support. Many observers are stunned that any parent would act in such a way. Some even are unable to believe that any parent could be as careless as the defense has admitted this man was.

The only surprise I have is that cases like this are as rare as they appear to be. When the gift of a child is so widely viewed as a burden to the point that contraception and abortion are ubiquitous, is it any wonder that some parents try for the post-term abortion? People who want to take advantage of the institution of legal abortion (if they aren't trying to defend it) instinctively recognize what abortion is and see the current legal standard that allows a parent to kill the child before birth, but not after as the artificial distinction that it is.

The jury is still in deliberations. The maximum sentence being sought is life in prison without the possibility of parole. If, as I suspect, the defendant is indeed guilty, this is entirely fitting and proper.