Roasting McCain and Unable

This is absolutely fantastic. I really wish this John McCain were in the debates. There'd be no chance for the Obamanation. Sorry it's in two parts. Couldn't find the whole bit in just one video.



And here's the second part:



But Obama, not so good, until he got to the self-effacing reference to his birth not happening at a manger but on Krypton, and all that followed.



Good Stuff.

Socialites

Great. All the world needs right now is more social drinkers, social smokers and SOCIAL SOCIALISTS.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

An Unlikely Proponent of Gay Marriage

I had begun a long post (surprise surprise) on how essential it is that Californians vote YES on PROP 8 this coming November. I had begun formulating two quite extensive arguments, one from a theological point of view and the other from secularist principles, starting with the nature of marriage and how homosexual activity is by its essence contrary to the activity of marriage. And since a species cannot belong to a genus to which its very essence is contrary, it would be impossible to truthfully and honestly claim that the species 'gay marriage' is a legitimate member of the genus 'valid marriage'.

I then began to describe another point- since Prop 8 is essentially a matter of linguistic semantics, it would behoove us to recognize that loose language is what got us into this problem in the first place, and the subtle effects of it are even found on the protectmarriage.com website and in the language of Prop 8 itself: this isn't about gay marriage, it's about homosexual marriage. Calling homosexual relationships 'gay' is like calling self-mutilation 'pleasurable'. It might be perceived to be so by some, but only if they are disordered and can no longer recognize what real pleasure is. I abhor the usurpation language by those who wish to undermine its meaning so as to denude it of any moral gravity that would otherwise condemn their unjustifiable actions.

And then a thought hit me, and it sounded so funny, and yet so impeccably truthful that I erased all I had written and began again with this:

I strive for being a husband in a gay marriage.

Yes, you read that right. In fact I would go so far as to say that gay marriage is only possible when one man and one woman, in the words of John Paul II, recognize that their respective masculinity and femininity complete each other in a physical, spiritual and sacramental manner, for it is only via this recognition, either implicit or explicit, that happiness is found in marriage.

Not only is gay marriage acceptable, but should be that hallmark of success in every marriage.

So when you go into the voting booth in 3 short weeks, remember that while it is essential to vote YES that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", it is equally as important to restore the idea of 'gay marriage' in the only way it should be used: to describe a happy marriage.

Freedom of Choice Pact

Forget taxes. Forget Wall Street. Forget the war in Iraq. All issues pale in comparison to the issue of life when it comes to which issue carries the most intrinsic weight, and which is the one we must answer first, given the gravity of the subject. IN THIS ARTICLE, Hadley Arkes makes a good case (in fact, a very similar argument to Blaise Pascal's in 'The Wager' for the primacy of Theology given the stakes involved...) for what is the real issue here and in every election till this is resolved:

Every issue in our politics involves the concern for the righting of wrongs, the relief of injuries or injustice. They may involve people threatened with the foreclosure of their homes, the loss of their jobs and their health insurance. All of these cases involve the suffering of hurts and harms. But they also depend on a judgment of the beings who count as “persons,” for if they don’t count, the harms they suffer go curiously unnoticed. In that famous scene in Huckleberry Finn, Huck had contrived a story and told Aunt Sally that his boat was delayed because "we blowed out a cylinder-head." Aunt Sally reacted: "Good gracious! anybody hurt?" "No'm. Killed a nigger." "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt."

Obama, as a man keen on the issue of race, should keep this quote on his wall instead of pictures of Ché Guevara the murderous, wretched mercenary of Communist puppet masters (Obama's new motto: 'Ché you can believe in'...). But he doesn't. He has signed the pact.

And because he doesn't see a fetus as a person either at conception or through birth, Obama can somehow manage to hold his head up and sign the pact with planned parenthood et al. to codify evil:



And he's serious. Because he not only thinks of a fetus as a non-person, but even born BABIES ARE A PUNISHMENT for what would otherwise be to him an acceptable promiscuity. And this is why we must end this vote-for-Ron-Paul-to-send-a-message-to-the-Republican-Party bullshit right here and now. Some otherwise very intelligent people are voting for Ron Paul this November. Let me put it very simply: voting for Ron Paul takes away votes from McCain. I'd love to see Ron Paul on the republican ticket as much as, or more than, the next guy, or even as a viable third party (which wouldn't happen) but the reality is that Ron Paul is doing for Obama what Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton. Now is not the time to make some ideological but impractical stand. Now is not the time to be playing with fire, no matter the policy Ron Paul stands for. Watch this to see what we will be living with for the next four years, and what we'll be missing if good people put naive but true ideological constructs in front of the realities and practicalities of political life:

Taxognomy and Taxing Ignominy

Recently, I posted a bit by Prof. David R. Kamerschen called BAR-STOOL ECONOMICS. This synopsis of Prof Kamerschen is a basic description of Reaganomics and an essential component in the trickle-down theory of economics. Some questions have been raised as to the validity of this description, and so I thought I'd revisit this subject, especially in the light of Barack Obama's continued insistence that his tax cut to 95% of working Americans is what the country needs, and is a complete turning away from the Bush budgets, where only the rich get tax relief.

Among the middle class and/or uninformed, it is a generally held but wrong opinion that Republicans only give tax breaks to the top 1-2% (i.e. the Rich) and tax the poor (i.e. the rest of the country), while Democrats give tax breaks to the bottom 98%, and tax the rich. The reality is that the Bush tax cuts of 2003 were the most progressive tax cuts for the middle class in quite some time. (Don't get me wrong, I think that Bush is an idiot economist...his tax cuts are good policy, but only when combined with less spending. Unfortunately Bush is a quasi-Republican when it comes to taxation-where he continues to tax the rich and undertax the welfare addicted masses- and a Democrat when it comes to spending. This is the worst possible mix.)

Take a look at the Wall Street Journal's analysis of the Bush tax cuts back in 2003 HERE, and more importantly, HERE.

Overlooking for the moment the role this (unfortunately) plays in (undermining) trickle-down economics, one must be turning a blind eye to the facts if it's believed for a moment that Republicans don't help the little guy. Simply put, the tax on the middle class has been cut significantly, which, as a solid member of such class, I feel not only in rate deductions but also in credits. How is this possible? Because the rich, while getting a tax cut under Bush, will make up a greater portion of the total tax revenue. This is bifurcation of tax revenue at it's worst.

Families with incomes over $100,000 would end up paying a larger share of the total income tax. These families would pay 73% of all federal income taxes. Not to put too fine a point on this income redistribution, but taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 could expect on average to pay about $99,000 in taxes under Mr. Bush's plan.

But take a look at the Obama reality. Under the Obama plan, 95% of working Americans will get a tax 'relief'-but 10% of America will get screwed more than even he recognizes. Howso? Because when he cuts income taxes on the middle class, he'll raise it on the wealthy publicly and on everyone privately- he proposes increases to the social security tax, death tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, etc. etc. But he's also going to increase spending. So he'll raise taxes even higher (one wonders why the $200,000 earners paying up to 73% in taxes haven't revolted yet. They will soon). This results in wealthy having less money to 'play' with.

'What's the big deal', you ask? 'Who cares if some rich jerk can't afford another yacht?

Simply put, the wealthy spend the greatest percentage of their money investing in American Markets. What they spend on goods is trivial compared to their investments. They do this because they are greedy and they want more money. The poor and middle class spend the greatest percentage of their money on goods (and usually goods which make them 'feel' wealthy like big screen T.V.s and new foreign cars). They do this because they are greedy and they want others to think they have more money. So while the wealthy are putting money back into American markets, the poor and middle class is busy giving their money to China, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, etc. Truly, if Barack Obama becomes president, he will ensure that every single person in America will have a home, two car garage, and 2.5 big screen TVs.

Thus the result of taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is that American companies won't have investors (because the rich can't invest, and they're also not selling goods because the poor are buying cheap foreign crap rather than American goods)

Thus, when Mr. Obama and the Democratic economic machine gets into office, plan on more American companies either going out of business or going overseas. And soon after that you'll lose your job.

And then you won't have to pay any taxes.

A Dreadful Evening

2 tickets to the NLCS in the left field bleachers, full of vocabulary challenged idiots sporting faux-Manny dreadlocks with a penchant for chanting "PHILLY SUCKS, PHILLY SUCKS" all freaking night, merely because the Dodgers got lucky with a 5 run first inning: $250

Replacing your shirt after being pelted with peanuts, condiment bags, ice cubes,mystery missiles, waterbottles, nachos, half-eaten dodger dogs and beer all night: $30

Being the only ones wearing Philly red in a sea of drunken and belligerent Dodger blue when the benches cleared in the third: Priceless.

One Last Thought On Modernist Architecture

No matter how hard you push the envelope, it's still stationery.

Typological Errors Gone Awright

THIS is too funny:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's last name is spelled "Osama" on hundreds of absentee ballots mailed out this week to voters in Rensselaer County, NY.

but it's not all bad news for the Democrats.

''This was a typo,'' said Republican Commissioner Larry Bugbee. ''We have three different staff members who proof these things and somehow the typo got by us.''

Republicans will have to face the fact that three of them together couldn't catch it. 'How many Rebublicans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?' will be a joke of the past. Although, the Dems got to proof it as well...

So, was it a purposeful ANTISTHECONIAN METAPLASM, Freudian slip, or honest mistake?

I don't care.

Missing the Middle (or Central) Term

In reference to my happiness over the location of the tabernacle in the Cathedral of Christ the Light, a misinformed reader commented that:

"...the 1967 document Eucharisticum Mysterium, section 53 advises the placement of the tabernacle in a separate chapel."

This is absolutely false. Actually, it's almost true, which is a special kind of falsity. This is indicative of the kind of misreading of texts that has lead many to misunderstand the wisdom and beauty of the spirit and letter of the Second Vatican Council, yet this kind of mishandling of the real intent is so widespread that people often take it for fact without second thought. So the question is, do you know where the tabernacle belongs in a church? Even the most orthodox often get confused in their answer. So if you're interested in my take on the Church's stance, read on.

The actual TEXT (including the context of the whole section on The Place for the Reservation of the Holy Eucharist):

52. The Tabernacle
Where reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is permitted according to the provisions of the law, it may be reserved permanently or regularly only on one altar or in one place in the church. Therefore, as a rule, each church should have only one tabernacle, and this tabernacle must be safe and inviolable.

53. The Blessed Sacrament Chapel
The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honor our Lord in this sacrament. It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures.

54. The Tabernacle in the Middle of the Altar or in Some Other Part of the Church
"The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a secondary altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local Ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped.

"Mass may be celebrated facing the people even though there is a tabernacle on the altar, provided this is small yet adequate."

55. A Tabernacle on an Altar where Mass is Celebrated with a Congregation
In the celebration of Mass the principal modes of worship by which Christ is present to His Church are gradually revealed. First of all, Christ is seen to be present among the faithful gathered in His name; then in his Word, as the Scriptures are read and explained; in the person of the minister; finally and in a unique way (modo singular) under the species of the Eucharist. Consequently, because of the sign, it is more in keeping with the nature of the celebration that the Eucharistic presence of Christ, which is the fruit of the consecration and should be seen as such, should not be on the altar from the very beginning of Mass through the reservation of the sacred species in the tabernacle.

56. The Tabernacle in the Construction of New Churches and the Adaptation of Existing Churches and Altars
The principles stated in nos. 53 and 55 ought to be kept in mind in the building of new churches.

The adaptation of existing churches and altars may take place only according to the principles laid down in no. 24 of this instruction.

57. The Means of Indicating the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle
Care should be taken that the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle is indicated to the faithful by a tabernacle veil or some other suitable means prescribed by the competent authority.

According to the traditional practice, a lamp should burn continually near the tabernacle as a sign of the honor paid to the Lord.

The particular text which is in question is this: "It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church"

To spell it out, this does NOT mean that a separate Eucharistic Adoration Chapel is required. What is required is that it be truly prominent and given due respect within the framework of the hierarchical arrangement of the liturgical furnishings, is capable of keeping the Body of Our Lord safe, and yet does not become a distraction or hindrance to participation within the framework of the Liturgy of the Eucharist (by physically getting in the way, or by calling too much attention to itself out of proportion to the rest of the sacred furnishings esp. the altar).

Part of the confusion is determining what is actually meant by "distinct from the middle or central part of the church". Just in case paragraph 54 didn't already clarify things, I submit to you some diagrammatic doodles to illustrate what is meant by paragraphs 52-54 in spirit and letter (and by extension, what is not intended) Click on the images to enlarge them.


And just in case anyone has difficulties moving from the universal to the particular, here's the same idea using a traditional cruciform plan and the plan from the Cathedral of Christ the Light.


Placing the tabernacle in the middle or central part of the church creates a physical and visual obstacle to the altar, places disproportionate prominence upon it (makes it appear more important than the altar), and can create an unsafe situation should someone come along and want to do harm to His Body, not to mention that it gets in the way of processions especially those in weddings and funerals (Sorry, Grandma, but we can't get Grandpa's coffin to the altar because Jesus is blocking the way). And since these things are what Eucharisticum Mysterium is trying to prevent, this scheme should and must be avoided.

Placing the tabernacle outside of the church is satisfactory because it keeps the Body of Our Lord safe, and also allows for private and intimate adoration, and obviously doesn't get in the way. But because only one tabernacle is allowed, this scheme is lacking because the prominence of the place of reservation is lost or diminished at best. Often because of renovations, this means that reservation takes place a great distance from the altar, and this is unfortunate because the altar and tabernacle should be visually and spacially linked to reinforce the fact that they are metaphysically and theologically connected.

Placing the tabernacle along the perimeter of the church but axially centered is best because all of the requirements are met. In an axially or linear plan, this is best along the major axis, in a radial plan this is not as important, but the geometry of the plan should help dictate the best location.

So you see, misreading the text (either purposefully or accidentally) of the directives of Vatican Council II and other pertinent documents of the Apostolic See can be detrimental, because mistaken liturgical design consultants use that misinformation to (either purposefully or accidentally) move Our Lord out of his home and into the Guesthouse where no one remembers He's there, or if they do, they think He is visiting their home.

The Cathedral of Christ the Light actually does a fantastic job of dealing with this issue. By placing the tabernacle behind the altar and yet viewable from the adoration chapel behind the sanctuary, there is an intimate, private adoration chapel AND the tabernacle is prominently displayed, with the small caveats DISCUSSED YESTERDAY. (and this is in fact an increasingly popular solution, and similar to the one which I proposed for the cathedral):

I'm glad we had this opportunity to look at these doodles. It helps shed light on some of the various good (and perhaps even orthodox) qualities of the Cathedral.

And yet, if you turn the image 90 degrees, almost all of the alien qualities about the Cathedral come to light as well.



UPDATE: HERE ARE THE FOLLOW-UP AND RELATED ARTICLES:

Cathedral of Christ the Blight (written prior to visiting the Cathedral)

There is No Prayer There (commentary on the exterior of the Cathedral)

Cathedral of Christ the Blight part II (replies to objections to my commentary)

Raiders of the Lost Art (commentary on the interior of the Cathedral and its art)

Raiders of the Lost Art

It has been so nice to read and write about things other than the failing economy and the upcoming obamanation. Having the mistakes made at the new Oakland Cathedral to rant about has been a wonderful respite from the news of the day, if only for me. So here we are in the fourth installment of my critique of the Cathedral.













I think it abundantly clear that the exterior of the Cathedral of Christ the Light is inadequate as a visible sign of heavenly realities. But what of the interior? Certainly it is true that many churches can be quite ugly on the outside, yet indescribably beautiful on the inside, such as one of my favorites: San Vitale in Ravenna (See two images above. This church also happens to be one of the two most important churches in Christendom for the development of western iconography). Who knows? Perhaps $190 million buys you interior beauty in Oakland. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend Mass at the Cathedral, and any full critique of the interior would necessitate the critic to see the building used in the intended fashion as a sacramental in the service of the liturgy. At any rate, judging the building qua building and art qua art is fine enough for now.

The first question any Catholic pilgrim asks when venturing into a new church is "Where is the tabernacle, so that I might cross myself before Him." In more recent buildings this usually amounts to a frantic visual scanning of all four corners of the room for anything that looks like a red candle to signify His Presence, or more frequently a sign that indicates the hallway one must traverse to find the Eucharistic adoration closet. Here, the Tabernacle is front and center. Right behind the altar. Yes, it's a bit insignificant in size, especially in the presence of a 80 foot tall quasi-corpus, but I was happy to see it hierarchically disposed nonetheless.

If one's eye is not immediately taken by the 'Omega Point' (the 80 foot Christ image in the 'apse'), then it is taken by the first real proof of the existence of the mystically reported traditional symbol of Christ: The Vesica Piscis. Truly, for most people who are not used to visually examining the geometry of a building, looking skyward and seeing the almond shape is the first hint that this is in fact a symbol at all employed here dispite the hype, and yet is more reminiscent of the eye of Sauron than the Ichthys.

The scale is in fact intimate, and I must say that having been in the place I am reconsidering the appropriateness of scale that I assumed for my counterproposal. While my proposal seated 500 more, it would have been twice as big. Although to be clear, theater-based seating and planning is notoriously less volumetric than the more traditional cruciform or basilica plans. But that is a whole book unto itself.

The materials are, well, sterile at best. The lower register, amounting to about the first 12 feet of the outer walls, is Brutalist: raw concrete. This brutalism is reminiscent of the master of the genre, Le Corbusier, and you all know HOW I FEEL ABOUT HOW CORBU RUINED CATHOLIC ARCHITECTURE. There is no decoration at all with the exception of the occasional green glowing exit sign, and there is no indication that this is a valuable building housing valuable 'goods'. These things, of course, make one want to, well, exit. It is, in fact even less detailed than the chancery less than 200 feet away which holds only paper. The sterility, accentuated by the lack of liturgical presence at the time, was overbearing, and I even found myself, God forgive me for saying this, thinking that the other quasi brutalist monstrosity in California-- the L.A. Cathedral-- would be a welcome visit after this, if for no other reason than because the colors are much warmer in the L.A. Cathedral, and the feeling is therefore much more inviting and comfortable. But here, it is cold and barren, a feeling that is heightened by the arid grey of the dais and altar: upon which life itself is given to us, so it was disappointing that the design of the altar was so disconnected with the reality of the glory that happens on it. There is of course, abundant wood, but it must have taken great skill to ensure that the wood would do so little for the design. There is no detail. Seriously, it's a bunch of stacked 2 x 6 in el cheap-o Douglas fir. How did this church cost so much with bare concrete and Home Depot lumber? Oh yeah. The infrastructure of the underground parking. Great use of money.

There is, with the exception of the mediocre stations of the cross, no art at eye level (although my wife very rightly pointed out that it's nice to have the stations at the eye level of children because they are often missed by kids) There is a side chapel dedicated to the Holy Family with some fairly decent work, and traditional in mode, but it is nothing exceptional. Opposite the Holy Family Chapel is the Chapel of the suffering Christ, and I must say that the thought crossed my mind that Christ is suffering precisely because this artwork is hidden in a back corner and not in the nave. Most unfortunately, Our Lady of Guadalupe is stuck in the very back, behind the sanctuary in a proto lady chapel that doubles as an Eucharistic Adoration Chapel. A very undignified setting for the patroness of the Americas.

But, when it comes to art, there is that 800 lb gorilla (Oh, my Lord, I am so sorry for so flippantly referring to images of you in that way), which is called the 'Omega Point', a.k.a Christ PANTOKRATOR. Of all the things about this Cathedral that are to be discussed, this image really bothers me not because I am coming into this with an a priori decision that it is that bad, but because I cannot decide whether I love it or hate it. I am a huge fan of images of Christ Pantokrator in the apse, on axis. It really is the most fitting icon that can be placed in a sanctuary. The eschatological goal of the Mass is paramount, and is also something regularly forgotten or overlooked, which is why we rarely see Pantokrators in churches anymore. Referring to the West Façade at the Chartres Cathedral for the image is a stroke of genius, because that particular Pantokrator is among the least frightful in the genre of Christ-as-Judge, but the representation here is quite horrible. PIXEL ART is usually just a waste of creative intellect, and this is no exception. The angular projection of the apsidal wall distorts the image, and there is something quite eerie about it. From straight on it looks like a TV projection, and because there is no other art to be easily seen, I am tempted to christen this image as 'iconoplasma'. (interesting phrase, that...christening an image of Christ) But, after reflection, I must say that the good Bishop Vigneron was a champ for getting the artwork in that he did, and doing it with as much meaning as possible. Certainly he chose the Chartres Pantokrator because copying something from the past kept something despicable from being designed by lesser artists from today's artistic cesspool, so kudos for that.

Before I end this ridiculously long post, I must mention one last bit. My critiquing of architecture has only one steadfast principle: If it can be given a funny nickname, it sucks. There's the BATMAN BUILDING, FRED AND GINGER, or THE LIPSTICK BUILDING as some secular examples, while THE YELLOW ARMADILLO and THE MAYTAG CATHEDRAL represent the ecclesiastical typology (Hmmm. and both in California...). That being said, take a look at the Cathedral's Confessionals in the picture on the left. Wow. This 2 x 6 blocks of wood motif really began to bug me after a while. It's in the sanctuary, throughout the mausoleum, and here in the confessional. It was everywhere. Needless to say, it was when I was studying this confessional that I was overcome with the desire to play Jenga. I can just imagine the long lines at reconciliation hour when Fr. Whosit is in the winner's bracket for this year's Jenga championship.

And so I smugly sat in that confessional chair and jotted down the note to remind me to come back home to my Oh-So-Important-and-Witty-Blog and nickname this place the Cathedral of Christ the Blight, or maybe Our Lady of the Igloo or St. Laundrybasket's.

Ah, but alas, there was more to the story. Here we have a correctly placed tabernacle; one of the only contemporary uses of Christ Pantokrator in memory; a hierarchical arrangement of sacred furnishings; an organ for use in Sacred Music, even if right now it's not chant; and even some contemporary (not modern) paintings and sculpture that doesn't make you vomit--all things that I fight for in my own practice. And even if the design is horrible (really well done horrible, but horrible nonetheless), I must admit these are qualities I praise when present in other styles.

So perhaps, when he inherited $60 Million of previously fundraised capital and an ugly as sin design for a church 5 years ago from the more liberal Bishop Cummins, Bishop Vigneron actually pulled off something quite helpful in the bigger picture of ecclesiastical design and helped other bishops and pastors to feel like they, too can do these things right, no matter what their dumb liturgical design consultant says, and that while this particular church is not that good, good things are coming for Catholic architecture because of its lead.

Perhaps he kept reins on what would have been a much worse project.

Perhaps he just dedicated the 'Cathedral of Christ the Light at the End of the Tunnel'.

I sure hope so.

UPDATE: HERE ARE THE FOLLOW-UP AND RELATED ARTICLES:

Cathedral of Christ the Blight (written prior to visiting the Cathedral)

There is No Prayer There (commentary on the exterior of the Cathedral)

Cathedral of Christ the Blight part II (replies to objections to my commentary)

Missing the Middle (or Central) Term (commentary on the placement of the Tabernacle in the Cathedral)