Kitty, Kitty...BANG! BANG!

So I've been super busy at work, and we're in the process of buying a house, so there's no time for blogging, which is a bummer for me, a reprieve for you. But this I had to write about.

You have doubtless heard of the atrocious displacement of animals from their natural habitat by encroaching development- development necessitated by population explosions caused by a lack of proper birth control. It's an outrage that these poor helpless animals, who were clearly on the land first, are being displaced by irrational and selfish parasites. It has to end. We must realize that we humans are members of nature as much as any other animal. It's time we finally come to see that the mountain lions have no right to continue to take our land away. Our cities have been here long before those lions were born. We were here first.

A couple blocks from us, there have been several dozens of mountain lion sightings over the last few months (as in one every couple days). This is quite frightening to me as a father, and angering as a citizen given the ridiculous stance the animal rights groups are taking. Santa Paula is not growing. There is no human development encroaching on the territory of established cats in the Santa Paula/Ojai/Ventura Triangle. The cats are moving into our territory because their population is exploding, thanks in large part to the idiotic prop 117 of 1990 that ended sport hunting of large cats in California--sport hunting needed to control the population of animals. But 'animal rights' activists HATE the idea of humans controling animal populations.

I have some experience in this subject. I grew up in Wyoming in a family of hunting and fishing guides. We were constantly in contact with the Bureau of Land Management and other civic entities that controls the population of large animals. The issue of population control was as front and center in my household as cartalk in a family of mechanics. And Wyoming has the largest population of lions in the country.

We have 4 good couple friends who have seen a lion in their backyard in the last month--all of whom have small children, one of whom is at the center of the big controversy of the Feb. 17th KILLING OF A LION CUB by Santa Paula police. Don't forget that this 30lb. cub was going to grow into a 150lb. killing machine. And it's being taught by its mother to kill in your backyard. Read some of the comments of that article for 'fun'. It's amazing just how irrational rational animals can be. These people bitch and moan about large families and how they're a drain on society, yet scream against population control for predatory animals in the midst of our children?

Now for a ranting interlude: There's a little book I want you to read. Please. It's called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" In it this man named "Charles Darwin" (that's no coincidence-it's really the same man that you have as your prophet, your idol) makes the argument that the primary mode of 'fitness' in natural selection, or 'survival of the fittest', as it was later called, is the ability to procreate. 'Procreate' is a big word, and one you're probably not familiar with, but it means to 'conceive, carry to term, and bear offspring'. And if you bear many offspring, then obviously the more 'fit' you are, and worthy of survival. So you see, Mrs. Anti-Large-Family, we are more 'fit' than you, mainly because you fill yourself with unnatural chemicals so that you cannot conceive and procreate. By your own naturalist principles, you must concede that parents of big families are more worthy of survival than you, because they propagate our species. Don't like what I say? Who cares. Their ideologies will win by the attrition of yours.

The frequency with which we are having sightings is alarming, and the news even caught the eye of Jay Leno (only the last 30 seconds is pertinent)



Funny and cute. But it's not going to be that way when a kid gets mauled because some 'animal rights' jerks put a greater value on a predatory cat than an innocent child, or more generally, on the procreative rights of a beast rather than a member of their own species. Where are the animal rights for human animals? When will our territory be protected? Are we not a member of 'Nature' like the mountain lion, and just as worthy of our own territory?

Hurry Up and Wait

Is it any wonder we Catholics, on February 14th, now celebrate the Feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius rather than the commercially and hedonistically ruined St. Valentine? I'm sure that fact was nowhere near the mind of our dear President this past weekend, as his priority was given to Cupid rather than Hermes:

"After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway. Obama arrived at his home in Chicago on Friday, and treated wife Michelle to a Valentine's Day dinner downtown last night...

...The president plans to spend the Presidents' Day weekend in the Windy City, and is not expected to sign the bill until Tuesday, when he travels to Denver to discuss his economic plan."

I'm so glad to know our President spent the weekend getting laid, while Americans spent their weekend fearing they might get laid off.

And They Shall Be Known for Their Fruits

Or, more specifically, their fruitlessness.

Thanks, ladies, for LEGALIZING DIVORCE for a whole new demographic. Good job. I'm so glad the true love you had for eachother that couldn't be expressed in any way other than 'matrimony' has lasted the test of...time.

Classic Blunder

OK, first, think this:

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a German when language is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Then, read THIS

I think the only not funny thing is that stupid kids might just go back to getting tasmanian devil tattoos out of fear of getting something other than intended written on their neck. And I was so happy when the looney toons tattoo fad ended.

H/T Meg & Fr. Barry

The Mouth of a Generation

I just can't find the desire to write lately. There's either too little that's interesting to catch my eye, or way too many important news items to choose from. Either way, I'm bored with ranting, and so I've just been drawing more. Sorry.

But I just couldn't pass up the egotistical remarks by rapper Kanye West, at the tail end of AN INTERVIEW where he claimed to be the 'Michael Jordan of music'. Heh.

West, 31, said life has been difficult since his mother's death. Donda West died last November after having plastic surgery... "I'm just going through balancing that. And I always used to have that support system, you know. My mom would be there; no matter what, she was there before everything," he said. "We were together for like 30 years.

Like 30 years? No way! That's, like, your whole life!

But then again, he just might be the voice of this generation. And maybe that's why I'm so tired of the news that I can't even muster the energy to write.

O! Wait! That's not why. THIS is why. I can't decide if it's really supposed to be Generation Zero. Why is there a new 'generation' every 5 years? Please.

Within the Framework of Boundlessness

I'm seeing a lot of art nowadays in museums and for sale that is frameless. Well, it's not exactly frameless, it's GALLERY WRAPPED.



A gallery wrap is usually chosen by young people and it is often use for modernist paintings rather than classic style painting. Even when a 'classical' theme or style is utilized, a gallery wrap will give a contemporary feel. There are 2 major benefits for using a gallery wrap, the first is the price which is much cheaper than a classical frame. The second is the weight which is much lighter in compare to any other frame style. The downside of a gallery wrap is that it can be used only for oil paintings and for acrylic paintings. These are the two major mediums that are painted on canvases that remain stretched on wooden bars (the underframe). Watercolor washes, Charcoal & Pencil drawings, and Pastel paintings are usually done on different kinds of papers which don't lend themselves to this kind of wrap. Additionally, these papers need glass, which is difficult to impossible to pull off when there's no outer frame.

All this being said, I am not a believer that all design decisions are economically based. While it's true that it has become very common to print photographs on canvas and then gallery wrap them because it makes the print editing process easier and cheaper, and many undiscerning beginners paint this way because they fail to ask themselves why they're doing it, there is nevertheless an ideology at work here and I'm going to take a stab at describing it.

Modernist artists don't like boundaries. They don't like being told that their art should be confined within a certain framework, because they see the metaphorical distinction of a cosmological view which determines reality within a 'framework ' of known or at least understandable principles.

Simply put, modernist artists don't want to give the impression that they are saying "look at this particular scene", which is what happens when a piece of art is conventionally framed. What they want to say is 'The subject or mode of representation of art should have no boundaries, so my piece of art should not have boundaries. The sides and back of the painting are just as important as the front, even if you can't see them'.

So the next time you see a gallery wrap, know that it's tipping its hat to modernist cosmology.

It's Prom Night, and Somebody's Gettin' Some

I am very depressed today. Having chosen a career in an 'artsy' field of architecture was a known issue-- it is full of liberals--I knew I'd be surrounded. Having moved to California was a family choice, not a political one, and while I have grown to love my little town in this horrible state, I really can't stand my fellow (Coastal) Californians. But I knew it was coming. Apparently, I am a glutton for punishment.

Regardless of how things turn out today in the election, I will continue to be depressed tomorrow. I will be happy if Prop 8 passes, as well as Prop 4. (As well as the similar props in other states). But only for a time. I will still have to live with changed fellow countrymen. Change is not coming if Barack wins. Change has already come. Barack is only the manifestation of what has become a more liberal society. Even just a couple years ago, the vote on marriage being between only a man and a woman won easily. Today, not so much. Change has been in the air. And it's choking us. We have turned our backs on God.

I envy my friends who work amongst fellow conservatives. I have none. I can't even get a good AM station on the way to work, and am forced to listen to either the hum and whine of static that corresponds to my engine interspersed with blips of speech from angry conservatives, or NPR on FM. Blech.

Today the liberals around me are like wanton, lascivious high school boys the morning of prom night...they are giddy with the titillating prospect of what they think is coming for them after the requisite dinner and dancing has been dispensed with. So, they're bouncing around, full of excitement and energy at the presumption of political intercourse with...anyone. The person doesn't really matter. What matters is that they think they're gettin' some tonight. They're willng to overlook that the one their about to mate is not who she says she is. Sadly, they don't really know what the ramifications are to what they're about to do. They think it'll be all pleasure, but don't see what they're doing to their souls or those around them, and that their moments of awkward self-gratification are more than likely going to be followed with years of suffering and sorrow.

I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that in a society that no longer values marriage and the lifelong commitment it entails, hopping into bed with any ideologue that happens to appear articulate is just another thing one does. If this ideologue turns out to be misleading, I can just divorce him. Nevermind the fact that ideological offspring have been spawned and that a whole other generation has been and will continue to be effected.

The electorate is incredibly uneducated. Rather than filling their minds with the truth and wisdom found in books, they fill their mind with the imaginings of T.V. and Film. We have become a people who is no longer working from the liberation of reason, but the confines of imagination--an imagination whose phantasmagoria is handfed to us by others.

We can no longer see that when we sleep with our prom date, we are sinning. We are preparing ourselves for a habit of sleeping with anyone and everyone. We are bringing ideas into the world through the invalid marriages of imagination and opinion- ideas that we cannot possibly care for or raise properly to full maturity.

Rome was truly great, but she still fell.

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)

Cathedral of Christ the Blight part II

Not surprisingly, there are some who take offense at those of us who are not taken in by the emperor's new clothes. ONE SUCH PERSON is, both in religion and in this case metaphor, a man of the cloth; so I will uncharacteristically refrain from my normal tone and acerbic retorts. Fr. Keyes' comments are:

Many bloggers who write from a distance have the audacity to judge a building based on pictures and news reports. Both Whispers and the American Papist are young catholics who seem to make gossip their hobby, and they are host to many comments calling the Cathedral hideous, and a monstrosity. Well, last Thursday I was a participant in one of the most beautiful liturgies I have ever been part of. It was an amazing event.

First of all, the building sings. The acoustics are wonderful andf the sound of singing in the place is worthy of any cathedral.

Secondly, the heart of any worship space is the people. No one who was there had a single word of complaint.

Yes, I am a bit more traditional. This might not have been what I would have built. But I believe this is a place for the ages, and future ages will judge it differently after it has had years of experience. Cathedrals are built over hundreds of years.

But for now, at the dawn of the 21st century, the Cathedral of Christ the light is the jewel of Oakland.

Respondeo:

To the first- It is true that I was unable to be present at the dedication Mass with Fr. Keyes et al., but I have actually been at the Cathedral, having visited it last weekend, so my comments are not misinformed by distant optics and a lack of physical evidence. Moreover, and as I shamlessly plugged in my previous post, I spent upwards of 16 hours a day for 11 months on a counter-proposal to this very Cathedral for my Master's thesis. It is quite possible that I know that Cathedral and that site in Oakland better than anyone with the exception of the project team at Skidmore Owings and Merrill. Architecture is my career, and I am in active practice designing several Catholic churches across the country. I am not a gossip mongerer (in this regard), without authority. Those things said, I will also concede that I'm not always right, but please consider my own arguments for why that building is not as great as you wish to think.

As to your experience with the liturgy, I am happy you report such beauty. The liturgy is the heart of the active Church. But here, we are critiquing the building housing Our Lord, and giving place for that liturgy. Truly, members of Karol Wojtyla's 'środowisko' youth group have claimed their most inspiring liturgies came under the Polish mountain air when on kayak trips with their future pontiff, but that does not mean that the Polish mountainside is per se an acceptable church merely because beautiful liturgies were said there. The Rite of Dedication of a Church and Altar is an absolutely beautiful liturgy, and one which most people--even priests-- don't get to witness because of the infrequency of dedicating new churches. Perhaps some of the beauty you took in was influenced by the breathtaking grandeur of the Rite rather than the breathtaking grandeur of the site?

To the second- It just might sing. Not having had the chance to hear a choir in action, I cannot lay claim to the ineffectualness of the building as an arena for Sacred Music. In fact, I'd bet my bottom dollar it's acoustically charged...it is a relatively simple geometry with thousands of regular acoustic dampeners, and with that pricetag I'm sure at least $2-3 Million was spent on acoustic models and testing-the same as any opera hall. But this only satisfies its requisite acoustical qualities...and represents a personal experience only...i.e. what the music sounds like to the individual listener. This is a good quality to be certain in any church, modern or traditional, but the personal edification of the ears of a parishioner is not the raison d'être of a church.

To the third- I cannot speak to the personal opinion of those present at the dedication Mass. BUT, I'd bet on two things: First, even I, who am a most vocal opponent of modernist architecture, especially modernist ecclesiastical architecture, can recognize when to keep my mouth shut. In deference to the good Bishop Vigneron's trials and tribulations with this church, I would never have badmouthed the building on the day of its dedication, and I suppose those at the Cathedral for it's dedication would not do so either, if for no other reason than out of respect for the Bishop. Second, who gets invited to dedications? Donors and priests. Are the donors going to criticize the design they paid for? Of course not. Are the priests? Reread the previous sentence above.

To the fourth-Here is the view of the Cathedral from across Lake Merritt that I snapped last week. As you look at this and the following image, please keep this quote in mind from the Rite of Dedication of a Church and Altar:

"Because the church is a visible building, it stands as a special sign of the pilgrim Church on earth and reflects the Church dwelling in heaven."

And here is my counterproposal from the same vantage point:

Which of these is a 'visible sign'? Can you even locate a visible cross or any other sign at all that tells the viewer that the Cathedral as built is even a Church? How do each stand as a 'special sign of the pilgrim Church', or 'reflect the Church dwelling in heaven'? I shudder to think of downtown Oakland as a reflection of the heavenly Church.

Future ages will not see what is currently there, in part because it will only last around 60 years. Modernist architecture is not built to last longer because ideologically modernist architects think it morally abhorrent to impose their own zeitgeist on the future, in the same way they do not wish to impose past ages on the present, and so they habitually specify details that are untried and untested. So they fail, and the planned obsolescence of the building takes shape. And I'm sorry to say, but glass façades have a funny way with dealing with 'experience': the older they get, the worse they look. This building is only going downhill from here.

But if a church is built for the ages via a tradition that transcends time and place, then a particular building of this or that time and place can be appropriate beyond itself. Traditional buildings take on a patina with age that actually enhances their beauty. They only look better with age.

To the fifth- "The Cathedral of Christ the light is the jewel of Oakland." The jewel of Oakland? I'm so sad to say this, but you are absolutely right. So unfortunate.

"The very nature of a church demands that it be suited to sacred celebrations, dignified, evincing a noble beauty, not mere costly display, and it should stand as a sign and symbol of heavenly realities."

--Dedication of a Church and Altar II.1.iii

The real question here is whether the Cathedral satisfies these qualities, and is an appropriate resting place for the Body of Our Lord. From the outside it is not. And we can do better. We can build right. We can build traditional. We can honor Our Lord with a Domus Dei. We must only have the will to do it, and then we can build functional, durable, and beautiful churches.

Tomorrow we'll take a tour of the interior, and seek redeeming qualities.

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)

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

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

There is No Prayer There.

During A RECENT TRIP up to the San Francisco Bay area, we stopped in at the newly DEDICATED Cathedral of Christ the Light, about which I have even stronger feelings than most other ugly churches, as my Master thesis at the University of Notre Dame School of Architecture was a counter proposal to this very Cathedral.

Originally, under the design of the previous architect Santiago Calatrava, the two walls of the Cathedral were to open...like hands in prayer. So, if parishioners held their head high in prayer, then it would have rained down their noses.

Thank Goodness Calatrava was fired. But who did they hire next? Craig Hartman of the modernist powerhouse firm S.O.M. What were his principles that made him worthy of taking over the second most expensive Cathedral project in America (and $80 million over budget!)? According to Hartman:

"The tradition of the Catholic Church has historically been to apply the most advanced architectural thinking to create works of architecture that illuminate, inspire and ennoble the human spirit."

Right. Because the eschatological goal of the Mass (you know, that thing that happens in this kind of architecture) is for illuminating, inspiring, and ennobling the human spirit. Straight from the mouth of an agnostic comes another historical, philosophical, metaphysical, and theological blunder which erroneously promotes the anthropocentrism of rationalism. Phew. That's much easier to read to yourself than aloud.

I think one of the most important aspects of this issue, and the one that strikes me most now that the Cathedral is finished, is it's presence in the city of Oakland, and the metaphor this becomes for the state of ecclesiastical architecture everywhere. Let us start with calling to mind Christ's words on the mount (especially because we're talking about the Cathedral of Christ the Light):

You are the light of the world.

A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket;
it is set on a lampstand,
where it gives light to all in the house.
Just so, your light must shine before others,
that they may see your good deeds
and glorify your heavenly Father.
–Matthew 5:14-16

Of her hometown Oakland, Gertrude Stein famously noted that "There is no there there." But of modern society we can say 'there is no prayer there'. Men and women bustle about downtown skyscrapers, office workers drone on in the vast oceans of concrete found in office parks across the country. Rarely, if ever, do they hear the ringing of the bells marking the liturgy of the hours. Rare is the visual reminder that they are called to higher things as they drive past a church, and when we build churches like the new Cathedral of Christ the Light, we are accentuating the problem. Our churches are not inviting people into them. Most of the time, people don't even know what that building is, and what it's for. 'Is it a dentist's office?' 'Is it a museum?' 'Is it a hospital?' 'Oh, THAT'S A CHURCH?!?!?! I never would have guessed!'

But you may ask 'why is it so important to spend a lot of money on a church to make it look beautiful?' There are lots of reasons, but here are some thoughts that are often overlooked.

One of the arguments that modernist architects often make is that the form, and not ornament, should speak to the viewer. OK. But do YOU really see a VESICA PISCIS in that building? No. You'd have to see a plan drawing of it. And because it's devoid of ornament, there's nothing else to go by. So, a slightly well read modernist would give you the sophistical argument that 'The church buildings of early Christianity were often bare. They were houses. They did not adorn their exterior because they knew it was not what you looked like on the outside, but rather the inside i.e. the state of your soul that counts.

OK, but this is misleading. The very early Church did not adorn its buildings because the people in those domi ecclesiae were being persecuted, and didn't want to call attention to themselves. They did use symbols that were ambiguous, so that they could be argued out of. Later, when Christianity was accepted and promoted, and all of Europe was Catholic, there was no need to call attention to one's self. There was little need to be a 'light' to a world that was already lit.

But with the advent of the protestant reformation, there became an increased need to represent to an increasingly unfaithful population the realities of what exists on the inside of churches-churches that reformers were no longer seeing the inside of. Thus, the genius of Bernini's collonade at St. Peter's, a welcoming gesture to all.

But now, with increased secularism, it is even all the more important for our churches to call attention to themselves to those that pass by. If nothing else, maybe those passers-by will wonder why so much effort was spent in building a beautiful House of God. Maybe they'll stop in, curiously, and find more beauty. And then our city on a hill, our lamp on a lampstand will bring prayer there.

I wish I could have seen it at night--we were there at 10 in the morning--because apparently it lights up like a lightbulb. The reality is no one, absolutely no one, is anywhere near that part of Oakland at night. It won't be able to succeed in inviting people in because there's no one there to see the invitation. And in the daytime, when people are there, it fades away into the same blah urban landscape with all the other glass and aluminum buildings (some also done by the same architectural office). So it's ugly or at best unnoticeable on the exterior. So what? The interior is inspiring, right?

Well, what I can know with absolute certitude is that if my wife the saint forgets to genuflect, it's probably because it doesn't feel like a Church at all, and certainly doesn't exude 'inspiration'. In fact, during the 2 hours or so we were exploring the Cathedral, I didn't see a single person in prayer. Not so surprising. I don't feel compelled to pray at office buildings, either.

Certainly, there is no Prayer there.

More on this to come.
UPDATE: HERE ARE THE FOLLOW-UP AND RELATED ARTICLES:

Cathedral of Christ the Blight (written prior to visiting 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)

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

When Catholic Art Really Sucks...

...then somebody's gotta call it out.

This is just horrible:



According to the 'artist', JOHN COLLIER:

"This Annunciation is set in suburbia, but the symbolism is quite traditional. Mary is reading from Isaiah about the Virgin who conceives and bears a son. The lily represents her purity, and she is welcoming St. Gabriel."

This painting sucks on so many levels that I-- in charitable love for the fellow human being who 'painted' it; my own brother in Christ --am forced to merely name only a dozen or so ways in which it so utterly offends the eyes of body and mind, not to mention the loosening effect it has on one's gastroesophageal valve, instead of the 4 hour tirade that I would go on if there were no shadow of the conventions of manners or societal niceties looming over me.

Look, I have no problem representing biblical events anachronistically. That is certainly within tradition, and appropriate when done correctly (unlike the tapestries in the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, which were most incorrectly done). The Renaissance artists put Mary in Renaissance clothing in Renaissance settings. Baroque artists put Mary in Baroque clothing in Baroque settings. That's all fine and good. But only because they did it well. Doing it to 'update it for updating sake' is merely trite, and muddling the decades makes it look like you weren't paying attention to details.

I'm sorry, but the claim that 'the symbolism is quite traditional' is just bull. Why is it traditional? Because there's some semblance of classical architecture? Because the composition makes some reference to the great work of Fra Angelico and his Annunciations? Because it uses (read: misuses) accepted symbolic references? Look, dumping 14 uncracked eggs, 2 drops of milk, a cup of water, 7 pounds of butter, 3lbs. of sugar, and two specks of flour into a bowl, mixing it up, and then chucking the goopy mess into an unheated oven doesn't mean you will necessarily end up with a quite traditional cake.

Using a denim frock and a red book is not the same as clothing our lady in red and blue to represent the queen of earth and heaven, respectively. Merely having the colors 'close' to her, or in her props, doesn't count. Symbolism is tied to the intrinsic meaning of the thing. If the book is red, it means something about the book, not the person holding it.

Arbitrarily placing a misshapen potted lily right in the foreground (and where no homeowner would ever, ever put it- because it's in the middle of the freakin' entrance walkway) shows that the artist was merely meeting the basic quota of simplistic symbols that just must be present in any Marian image, rather than composing a scene that is first believable and only then also symbolic.

What's with the brown dove on the right? What's he sitting on? Why is he brown and not white? It looks as if it was just jammed in there because no other place in the composition would afford it, and yet the "Painting Religious Art for Dummies" checklist clearly stated a dove was required in an annunciation scene. The only other option it's just some bird, and doesn't symbolize anything, but that would be stupid because 'traditional symbolism' never wastes effort misleading the viewer with a meaningless object.

The picayune skill level of the artist can not even be categorized as acceptable for religious art, let alone sacred art, if that was the intent. Craft is a prerequisite for art. The ability to understand basic color theory and composition is necessary, but not sufficient, to be considered art. In this case, the level of craft isn't even sufficient. Part of the craft of painting is understanding and being well practiced in the structure of bodies and the forces that act upon them, so that when you depict dynamism or action, it doesn't look retarded. With that in mind, ask yourself why the zephyr acting on Mary's frock isn't affecting anything else. Maybe because it's not a breeze at all...maybe she's moving? That's just not what her body mechanics and weight distribution are saying. So then, why is the frock distorted? What does it mean? I'm afraid it doesn't mean anything. Great symbol, Johnny.

Again, if you're depicting static motion, and you're going to paint or draw figures, study the human body and its proportions. The form of Mary's body does not respond to normal anatomy and bone structure. While Our Girl has the calves and ankles of a 3 year old, the face of a tween, and the posture of an octagenarian, the poor Arcangel Gabriel is a pygmalean. And while I cannot say with certitude that the angels anthropomorph into the same scale universe that we material bodies are tied to, we can at least say Gabriel has a proportional integrity about him, as do model railroads in the basement of 8 year old boys and 45 year old men, both living at home with mother. But before you think I'm complimenting this piece (of something), note that Gabriel is covered in the same mauve color as the wall beyond, and thus fades into the wall because of a utter lack of contrast in form or color so that his bodily form is missed. If you refuse to study human anatomy, then at least learn the principles of projective geometry so that your shadows don't look like they're constructed by a freshman Fine Arts major. Seriously, I count no less than 5 different directions that shadows are being cast. If this was unintended, then that's a shame. If intended, then I will be forced into interpreting your use multiple points of origin for your light sources as just that: multiple sources of 'light', and in 'traditional symbology' that always has and always will represent a polytheist cosmology, which last time I checked is something us Trinitarian Monotheists known as Roman Catholics frown upon.

Most importantly, what makes me know the little girl's reading Isaiah and not Judy Blume? Just because the artist says so in his blurb about the painting online? Oh wait, I see. It must be because the only people who wear hideously ugly frocks are traditional Catholic girls who are borderline Stoics and Manicheists who read Isaiah at sunrise on their front porch. Why this reading? Because there is no actual symbol there; only a sign: the sign for 'this object is a book'. 'Traditional symbolism' doesn't need a companion brochure to explain itself. It is, by itself and by convention, able to convey meaning. If it doesn't, then it's a symbol of either nothing, or a symbol of the inability of the artist to communicate, both of which result in the reality of not being a symbol at all.

For those of you who will have now become shocked by the pounding I'm angrily heaping on this poor defenseless guy, please keep in mind two things: 1) I've heard of several otherwise rational, cultured adults who nevertheless like Mr. Collier's representation of the Annunciation, which is a shame that shows our current Catholic culture is uncultured; and 2) The real trouble with this, and why I'm so very critical, is because ever since FR. COUTURIER'S, irrational but influential ideology concerning the value of religiosity vs. the value of talent in artists, Catholic artists have had to work incredibly hard to earn back even the most trifling patronage from our own Church, and ilk like this painting just makes it that much harder to convince Bishops not to hire atheists more talented with a brush or chisel in deference to those artists with real Faith. So I'm angry and taking it out on this guy because, well, not merely because this work deserves it, but because it's important to recognize that while in the big picture it's not as offensive to the True, Good, and Beatiful as Jackson Pollack's SPLATTERING, we should nevertheless be demanding more from our artists than mere inoffensiveness, especially if they are claiming to be within the tradition. Besides, according to the Vatican, ART SHOULD INTRODUCE US TO THE SAINTS. What kind of friendship are we being introduced to if the art stinks, or even worse, misleads?

So in all of this let's keep in mind that Blessed Fra Angelico painted no less than 7 VERSIONS of the same or very similar composition of the Annunciation. Why? Because he was never satisfied with the previous one, and it was such an important theme that he wanted it to be perfect. (Even though they were all really good) Let's hope Mr. Collier takes at least this one page from Bl. Fra Angelico's playbook: thinking if not realizing your last painting wasn't that good, and that you need to redo it, for Christ's sake.

Up Next: Pelosi Explains Humanae Vitae

How do these people honestly hold their head up?
Above his payscale? The Church is not aware of the point at which life begins and therefore that's not what matters?

Here's Pelosi's (and Obama's) actual comments:




Perhaps if Pelosi doesn't want to read actual Church documents, she could include this reading in her 'extensive study on the issue': "Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective" by Fr. John Connery:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."
Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

I really need to stop following politics, because it's leading me to some pretty hateful thoughts. Although, I did really enjoy seeing both Pelosi and Obama get drymouth while making up their responses on the spot. They were both clearly nervous. This is a good thing, as even the most ardent murderers are now showing weakness in their confidence in falsehood. There's hope...

Beastly is only sin deep

THIS KIND OF CRAP is why I'm so serious all the time.

...'And for the talent competition, Sister Rufina will be making rosaries in a dazzling habit of black and white sequins to the music of Neil Young's "Natural Beauty"'.

I used to think Fellini's 'ecclesiastical fashion show' in his movie "Roma" was satire, but I guess it was actually prophecy.

Here's the clip in case you haven't wasted 2 hours of your life to see the rest of the movie:

lesbians 1, Lesbians 0

I thought that you would like an update on THIS post a couple of months ago. (and when I say 'you' I'd like to mean it in the plural, but I fear the truth) It seems that those Cretans who call themselves judges in Greece's court system DECIDED AGAINST the residents of the island of Lesbos who were trying to reserve the adjective 'lesbian' to those people who are actually residents of Lesbos.

Interesting note to remind us to act charitably: 'cretin', or stupid person, deformed of the mind or body, is from the Swiss French 'crestin', which in turn is from the Latin 'Christianus'. This was to remind people that those unfortunately deformed or dumb were nevertheless human and not beasts.

So I mean it in all charity that those stupid, psychotic and socially undermining lesbian cretins are ruining my language. But yes, they're as human as the judges aren't. Same thing goes for the FOOLS MISLEADING South Carolina. "So Gay?"

Some Grammatical Pet Peeves

I really shouldn't post this, especially because there have been so many typological errors in this blog lately, but yet I can't help myself. I'm more bothered when I fall prey to these errors than when I find them elsewhere, which is very often. So...here are just a few of my orthographical, grammatical and syntactical pet peeves; randomly numbered. How could I DESCRIBE DISORDER in any particular order?


1. Emoticons :-(
Punctuation marks should be treated with respect. Do not disrespect them in front of me. They are not matter for art, and our society is stupid enough without promoting the linguistic devolution to hieroglyphs for idea conveyance. And don't give me that bullshit line about how 'it's convenient to use them for expediency in emails or IM'. It's convenient to pick my nose, but such convenience does not make it acceptable simply because I'm too lazy to reach for a Kleenex. If you can't convey sarcasm with the written word, then you're just going to look like a bigger jerk for using one of those winking debacles, and still come across as an idiot 13 year old.

2. Try and get away with this one
At issue here is the misuse of an infinitive. It should be try to get away... What if you didn't get away with it? You'd try and get away and then not get a way? Stupid.

3. Irregardless, you're still an idiot
I don't know what bothers me more...people who use 'irregardless' when they mean 'regardless', or the asshole who put 'irregardless' in the dictionary and then wrote: see regardless.

4. Seriously. I really could care less for you.
Take a peek at the illustration to the right. Very few people actually get this one correct, implying a sardonic inner meanness of spirit AND an inability to understand what their flapper is really saying. Please don't say 'I could care less' when you mean to say that you don't mind if this or that happens. Hint: if in conversation, I say to you: 'I could care less for you', take it as a huge, however so quantitatively ambiguous, compliment, and a rare but pure display of true Christian Charity.

5. The George W. Nuclear
I have a gadget on my google homepage that is constantly feeding me great gaffes from Dubya. I want to name the mistake of saying 'noo-kyoo-ler' instead of 'noo-klee-er' after His Gaffeness.

6. Lend me you ear or I'll lay waste upon you.
Don't use loan for lend. 'Loan' is a noun. 'Lend' is a verb. Again, don't misuse 'lie' when you mean 'lay'. 'To lay' means to set, or put. 'To lie' means to recline. Chickens lay eggs. People lie down.

7. This is just between you and I...
No. I'll try to keep it between you and me that you're a moron who should go back to redo grammar school. And don't say 'responsibility was shared between John and myself' just because you know 'I' isn't right but you don't know what else to say, or are unsure of the correctness of 'me' because of unfamiliarity. You'll just sound like a more refined fool.

8. Apostrophe pimping
The poor apostrophe is already an overtaxed mark. Please don't thrust responsibilities upon it that are not becoming. If you are unsure of basic apostrophe use, please visit THE APOSTROPHE PROTECTION SOCIETY, they have 1000s of examples. (not 1000's)

9. Homophones
As an addicted punster, you'd think that I wouldn't mind the sprinkling in of misused homophones, right? WRONG. If you use 'its' for 'it's', confuse 'their' for 'they're', misuse 'your' when you mean 'you're', then you better pray I don't know where you live. While I'm on the topic, don't ever, ever excuse yourself from a witty remark by 'no pun intended'. If you let it fly, take pride in it, even if it was a stroke of accidental genius. If you insist on not punning, it's still better to let it out and bear the shame, than keep it in and bear the pain.

10. Going to the Libary in Febuary
I'll forgive my toddler, but not by friends for leaving out an 'r' in Library or February. You should practice saying these while driving. It relieves the tension of life.

And because my lists GO TO ELEVEN:

11. Basically, this is infinitely worse than anything else: literally
So many people--young people usually, but often crappy writers--overuse 'basically' that it's just sickening. The only basic truth we hear out of their yapping mouths is that they have a very basic vocabulary. 'Basically' used this way is a kind of adverbial overstatement, similar to LITERALLY, but not quite as bad as 'infinitely'. I recall C.S. Lewis' remarks about the presumptive comparison to the 'infinite':

"Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say 'infinitely' when you mean 'very'; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite."

"Because really, where could you go from there? Where? Nowhere. But what we do, if we need that little push over the cliff, we go to eleven. One louder."

That Doctor's Name Sounds Familiar

Dr. Philip Nitschke, an euthanasia provider in Australia, IS ADVISING ANYONE who believes they might have Alzheimer's to avoid being diagnosed. His argument runs something like: 'Surely you don't want to suffer from Alzheimer's. Before you start suffering, kill yourself. But to keep those who assist you (that'd be me) from being prosecuted, we need you to do it before there's any evidence that might convict us. Thanks for your help, and we hope your next existence is more enjoyable.' But in his own words:

"Don't go to your doctor. Don't have the tests done. And if you do have the tests done that show that you're starting to lose mental capacity, make sure it is not recorded..."

This is from the guy who told National Review "that the peaceful pill [a suicide pill] should be available to troubled teens."

Again, I'm more than willing to concede that Dr. Nitschke has the right to die. Let's all step aside and let him jump to the front of the queue.

Incomplete Sentences

Take a look at THIS, and then compare it to THIS. (They're both short)

Here's how I interpret what I see, in relative order:

If you're found guilty of writing threatening notes and building a fake bomb (but not actually causing physical harm to anyone) you face 73 years in prison.

If you're found guilty of impersonating a medical doctor, collecting service fees from running 6 unlicenced abortion clinics resulting in grand theft, seriously injuring at least 9 women, attempting genocide on Hispanic Americans, and killing countless babies, you face only 9 years in prison.

Yeah. We Americans sure know what justice is.

Juno, I Think They're Missing Something

After Time Magazine BROKE THE STORY last week of the 'pregnancy pact' in Gloucester, Mass, there's been a lot of talk about the 'Juno Effect'--referring to the spike in teenage pregnancy because recent movies such as 'Juno' and 'Knocked Up' glorified it. Planned Parenthood is on the warpath, and doing anything they can to undermine whatever pro-life message that might have been in these films. Mass media has picked up the torch, attacking any pro-life groups who defend the films as well as the high-school students at the center of current attention in Gloucester.

There's even a NEW REALITY SHOW ON NBC that is puts 16-19 year olds in charge of babies in order to teach them "that parenthood is a very grown-up grind."

But is that the only interpretation of the 'Juno Effect'? I think not.

To me, it's not surprising that there are 17 pregnant girls in a high school of 1200, but it is surprising that there aren't 100s more. Teenage boys and girls are humping like rabbits. And then coerced into aborting by parents and teachers when they magically conceive. And it's obvious that contraceptives aren't working, either. ACCORDING TO The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, 54% of women who had abortions used contraceptives. 54% failure rate, and they want you to think that contraceptives are more effective than abstinence. (Actually, I think abstinence is the wrong choice of words. We should be promoting chastity of mind and body, not merely abstinence.)

At one college campus in one year, according to figures provided by Feminists for Life of America, “of 3,000 college women, 600 had pregnancy tests; 300 of these tests were positive; and 6 women had babies.” Yes. That means that half of the women tested were pregnant. 98% of them ended in either miscarriage or abortion. I'd bet maybe 1 or 2 was a miscarriage.

So back to Gloucester. We know that kids have been and are promiscuous. We know that there's been an increase in pregnancies, as the pregnancy rate for teens is up 3% nationwide in 2006, but abortions are on the decline overall. So, instead of saying that 'Juno' has put it into these teenagers' minds that they have to have to get pregnant to be cool, we should think that it has put it in their mind that it's really not cool to kill the baby should they get pregnant. I wouldn't doubt that some of the girls got pregnant to be in THE INNER RING. (If there's only one linked article you read from this blog, make it 'The Inner Ring'.) But I do doubt free contraceptives from the school would have prevented this.

Juno is not convincing kids to have more sex just to have babies. Juno is helping them see that abortion is not the only choice once they are pregnant. Now, we need to help them see that chastity is an earlier choice.

Insane in the Membrane

In my line of work, I'm usually surrounded by older women (and men) who have done everything they can to look younger, slimmer, curvier. I've become quite used to cosmetic surgery, and if I might say so myself, quite adept at spotting a good job from a bad one.

In a way, I've become desensitized to the practice because I spend so much of my time amongst those that routinely try to shave off a few years or a few pounds the easy way. Given how many surgeries some women get, and while I haven't lost nearly as much sensitivity as they surely have, I am usually not surprised of the various crazy ideas that some people have to change what they are to what they think they once were, or should have been.

The problem is that people get cosmetic surgery because they want to change those aspects of themselves which are out of their control. Their bottom lip isn't as puffy as Angelina Jolie's. Their boobs aren't big enough. They're wrinkling at what they feel is too young of an age. Sadly, the results of plastic surgery, even when performed by the most capable hands, always looks the same. The more that is done on one face, the more similar that face looks to all other faces. They all take on the Michael Jackson look. Shiver.

At any rate, I've stopped complaining about it, which for me is usually a sign of approval, but in this case it is not. It's just not that big of a deal. It's sad, and I feel poorly for those who don't feel comfortable in their own skin. I'm reminded of that comment by Jean Kerr:

"I'm tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin-deep. That's deep enough. What do you want --an adorable pancreas?"

But sometimes, there's an indication of some greater problem. I'm sure by now you've heard about HYMEN REPLACEMENT. What is truly disturbing about this procedure is not that it's merely pretending to replace the hymen which is a lie in and of itself, but the reasons that it's being performed. At one point, a doctor says:

"These [Muslim] women can...adopt our mentality and wear jeans. But in the moments that matter, they don't always have the strength to go against their culture."

What this is really saying is that the only thing that matters is that we not only no longer value virginity, but that we should no longer value religions that promote chastity. This is not just a Muslim issue, although it is clear that while the public mistreatment of women happens more frequently in Islamic countries, it's really men (qua vicious men) that are mostly at fault. Men who love their fantasies more than their wives. That fantasy may come in the guise of chastity, or it may come through a more vicious reality: pedophilia. Look at what another doctor notes:

"I have colleagues in the United States whose patients do this as a Valentine's present to their husbands..."

Oh, I long for the days when a face-lift was done in private because of the shame--the days when a boob job was still controversial. Why would a man want this of his 'beloved'? Because he has a fantasy about removing the innocence of a girl, of deflowering the pure of heart and body. There is no other explanation. He is pretending his conjugal mate is as innocent as a child, and this is utterly disgusting. Especially because the women who are giving this 'Valentine's gift' to their 'husbands' have so little respect for themselves and their lover that they would aid and abet this crime of innocence. This is pedophilia, and it's on the rise in our world. Child porn is protected as free speech. Capitalism has given our 8 year olds sweatpants with "JUICY" written across the butt, and parents have bought it and into it. Fathers are too weak to question why their pre-teen daughters are wearing micro minis to school or the mall, until the day they get mauled. Women want to be 'like a virgin'. Men want to 'like a virgin'. At least the article got this much right:

"[men are] the biggest of all donkeys"

Women are not free of guilt, though. With hymen replacement they are changing something that they actually had control over. They chose to lose their virginity. And even for those women that punctured their hymen due to childhood accident or rape, chastity of mind and heart is much more obvious and important than chastity of the genitalia. Not properly understanding chastity of the body has it's dangers: PERHAPS YOU'VE HEARD OF THE GROWING PHENOMENON of young girls only willing to be lesbians or only perform oral sex (or worse) because they 'want to save themselves for marriage'. This ploy is one of the various methods that Planned Parenthood uses in their plot to sexually activate our children and then kill their children. This is not chastity. This is like stealing your food and clothes because you want to save your money to tithe more to the Church.

We, both women and men, together, need to absorb and live the THEOLOGY OF THE BODY, to overcome society's Theology of the Bawdy.

An Argument With Gaping Black Holes

Remember the EQUANT? Remember PHLOGISTON?

Of course not. Unless you are incredibly nerdy, or perhaps attended one of 4 colleges in the world that still has its students read Ptolemy and Lavoisier, you are completely forgiven for your ignorance. You're not a scientist, right? That kind of specific knowledge is something only they have, right? The reality is, even professional physicists have no recollection of such mistakes of logic commited by their forebears.

Equant and phlogiston theory are two great examples of what happens when theorists are trigger happy to conceive of their theories as fact, or are willing to explain away the empirical data with unreasonable logic in order to avoid recognizing that just perhaps the premises they are working from are false.

There are a myriad of articles just like THIS ONE. Dark Matter is the new Phlogiston. Dark Energy is the new Equant.

The theory of Dark Matter arose out of the necessity to deal with obvious emperical data that depicted a gravitational pull that could not be explained by the existing model of the cosmos. In order to save the model, which worked on many other planes, physicists posited the existence of a material that by all stretches of the imagination cannot exist in the way that we know 'existence'. But they'd rather change metaphysics than physics.

The same goes for Dark Energy. They "are even willing to burn down their old sainted Einstein and revise his theory of gravity, general relativity, to make the cosmic discrepancies go away." This is to say, they are not willing to accept that they are viewing acceleration and motion from a different, relative plane of observation, but are willing to discard the reality of relativity in order to deal with obvious logical fallacies that their further theories present when taken to their natural conclusions. Some of them even recognize that they are betting long odds:

“We are placing a large bet,” Dr. Mountain said, “using our credibility as collateral, that we as a community know what we are doing.”

Even so, I fear the physicists of tomorrow will be standing on the shoulders of midgets. Midgets obsessed with darkness are leading us into another dark age.