David Ancell / Tuesday, August 22, 2023 / Comments(0)
Sometimes I like to poke fun at something while also asking a question. You see, it has long been my decision not to buy music that is labeled as explicit lyrics. I might buy a non-explicit song off an album that was “stickered,” as I used to call it, but I would avoid the actual songs with the label. However, in looking through some recent music, I’m not so sure what to make of it anymore.
Now, I have to wonder what constitutes explicit lyrics and if I can even use that standard. Take the song, for example, named I’m Offended by John Rich. It’s labeled as having explicit lyrics. The only line that I can find in it that contains profanity is when he talks about how he prays to God and says to the atheist something like “You don’t believe he exists, so why are you so p*****?” I hear that word from people who don’t use other cuss words on a number of occasions.
Another curious example is the now-famous song “Try That In a Small Town” by Jason Aldean. He starts talking about how one day “they” are going to round up all the guns and says “That s*** might fly in he city . . .” Well, maybe you could argue that one shouldn’t play that for one’s kids, but that’s hardly explicit lyrics in my mind. In any event, I found that there is a clean version from Jimmy Levy that says “That stunt might fly in the city.” It has a little different sound to it, but it’s obviously the same song.
What makes the labeling of “Try That in a Small Town” more interesting is Oliver Anthony’s now famous “Rich Men North of Richmond.” I counted four uses of the “s” word, and it’s not labeled as containing explicit lyrics. Honestly, I have a bigger issue with the way he uses the words “Lord” and “God” in the song than the profanity itself. It just goes to show that there may not be a standard that is being applied here.
The funniest thing I saw on an online store was this album being labeled as explicit: Benedicta: Marian Chant from Norcia. No, I am absolutely not joking.! This album is literally Gregorian Chant, but one of the songs was listed on two different music services as having one song with explicit lyrics. The name is “Sequence Ave Maria . . . Virgo Serena.” Search for it if you don’t believe me. I really don’t think the Benedictine Monks are dropping F bombs in Latin.
As a disclaimer, I’ll add that this info is accurate at the time of this writing as I know that sometimes the labels get changed. However, my point is that, while there is a lot of music labeled as explicit that is clearly garbage, the label itself might not be much of an indicator of anything in particular anymore. It’s worth checking out the lyrics online to see if they really are or aren’t offensive and making the decision from there.
Category: Response
David Ancell / Friday, March 31, 2023 / Comments(0)
I’ve seen on the news lately that the House of Representatives passed a parents rights bill concerning our schools. It passed with all Democrats opposing the bill. Some Republicans also oppose it, but I saw that at least one of them did so, not because he opposed parental rights, but because he opposed additional federal regulations in education. For the people who did oppose parental rights, and I believe a lot of the naysayers do, one must ask why someone would oppose this?
There are many important concerns about what is being taught in public schools these days. However, I would say there is a deeper issue that I haven’t heard much about. If parents are not competent to know the educations needs of children, who is? How is it determined? To answer these, or similar questions, we need to first answer this – who is education for, and what is it’s purpose?
In order to know what a child needs to know, we need to know the fundamental purpose of the knowledge. Otherwise, we are aimlessly shoving academics at our kids with no real end in mind. This is something we really need to think about.
With this being said, I can’t think of anyone who would be better suited to direct the purpose of education than the people who love the kids the most. They certainly will know and understand their kids better than education system bureaucrats. Besides, if a set of parents messes it up, they mess up only their own children. The bureaucrats have the potential to cause an entire town, state, or maybe even the whole country to be poorly educated.
And besides, is there really an objective standard of what needs to be taught in a school? How is it determined? Are there things better taught by other means (I’ll say absolutely there are.)?
We’ve really got to think about these things.
David Ancell / Tuesday, February 28, 2023 / Comments(0)
Lent is here, and with it, I’d like to help clear up a misunderstanding. Giving up something for Lent has value in itself. I remember reading an article years ago from someone who had a priest get on the pulpit and tell people that giving something up for Lent is useless unless you donate the money saved to the poor.
Now, it’s a great thing if you donate the money saved to the poor. You may feel the need to do this in order to ensure you make a true sacrifice and don’t gain anything from it. However, making an offering to God that has no tangible value is perfectly acceptable. It can even help you avoid falling into the sin of pride for having benefited a charity, if you are inclined to this vice.
Giving up something is simply a way of offering something to God. It’s a way of reminding yourself that this world and its pleasures are passing. It’s also a way to detach yourself from something you enjoy. I remember a priest talking about how they get used to being without what they gave up. He seemed to think it made the penance useless. I’d say it made the penance successful, but if you are no longer feeling the sacrifice you made, then you can choose to make an additional sacrifice.
Also, giving up something is a good, natural means of strengthening the will. Think of it this way. . . someone learning to defuse bombs would not practice on a real bomb. They will use some kind of practice model. Likewise, if we are learning to resist sin, we can practice with something we can legitimately engage in whether than with something that would result in us having offended God if we did.
Also, if, for whatever reason, you aren’t donating money saved from your penance, you can always offer it up for someone who needs it. Maybe you can help someone get out of purgatory. There’s a lot of good to be done with it. So, give something up, but do it with intention.
One final note . . . if you do choose to give something up that isn’t sinful and then break your fast, you didn’t sin. You took on a voluntary penance, and you are free to modify it or even set it aside. However, Lent is a penitential season, so I would suggest ensuring you do some kind of penance.
David Ancell / Saturday, December 31, 2022 / Comments(0)
The death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI definitely makes for a sad ending to 2022. He was one of my biggest heroes in the Catholic Church. I have the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club mug from before he was elected pope, which says “putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981.” I think I have the t-shirt also. When I was a new Catholic in the 1990s, I thought of him as some kind of theological fuddy-duddy. As I learned more of the fullness of the faith, I realized he was really one of the true defenders of the Faith.
By the early 2000s, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, I really thought it would be great if he became the next pope. However, I figured he wouldn’t because of his age. Just before the conclave, I remember that he gave a speech warning about the “Dictatorship of Relativism,” and some media person remarked that he just disqualified himself from the papacy. Then, I was waiting, and occasionally refreshing the webpage on a news site. Finally, much to my surprise, a bar with a red background appeared at the top of my screen saying that “Cardinal Ratzinger is the new pope.” It was a dream come true!
I very much loved his emphasis on focusing on God himself. The Church is not a social work institution, though we do that kind of work, but the Body of Christ. It is ultimately Jesus Christ himself whom we must seek and whom we must serve. From what I remember, he wrote his Introduction to Christianity to help correct the errors of some theologians who were leaning towards some kind of socialist understanding of Christianity.
One great example of his focus was his book entitled The Spirit of the Liturgy. It was one of the best books on the Mass I have ever read. Solid formation on what the Mass is and how it should be celebrated is still probably the most difficult thing to come by. I dare say there are people with advanced degrees in liturgy who have things completely wrong. There were people spouting off stuff like how the churches needed to be that semi-circle shape so that we see each other and see Christ in one another. This essentially de-emphasized God himself and made the focus more on “the community.”
Before I read the book, I found it strange that he advocated the priest turning around and facing the same direction of the people (often called “having his back to the people,” but this is a misunderstanding). However, when I read what he wrote, I became completely convinced that this is how Mass should be celebrated. We, the priest and the people, are moving together towards God.
There is a lot that could be said about this holy man whom we had as pope for eight years. Now, he has gone to be with the Lord whom he served so well. Eternal rest, grant to him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.
David Ancell / Tuesday, December 13, 2022 / Comments(0)
Here we are in Advent. For those of you who aren’t Catholic, Advent is a season in our Church calendar which we are preparing for Christmas. The Church never just lets a major feast day happen. Days that are as holy as Christmas and Easter require preparation. Like everything else in life, our celebration is much better when we have taken time to prepare.
The thing about Advent is that the way in which we prepare for Christmas can be hard to figure out. When I was new to the Church, I saw my pastor in the purple vestments that signify penance, and I asked him if Advent were a penitential season. He told me it was “half-penitential.”
I can see why he said this. Just like in Lent, the priest wears purple vestments. The Gloria is omitted from Mass, but the Alleluia is still sung before the Gospel. There are some prescribed penances in Lent, but in Advent, there is no particular penance prescribed.
It makes sense that it is this way when one thinks about it. Lent is a preparation for Easter. However, in order to get to Easter, there is the Passion and death of Our Lord on the cross. There is no such death that we must commemorate before the birth of Our Lord. We are simply waiting for him to come. There is, however, a deep longing in the world, and many don’t realize that longing.
Maybe the best preparation is to do our very best to focus on the Lord and remember that he is the reason, not only for the season, but our whole lives. This can be difficult in the midst of our lives this time of year. We are in a pretty bad flu season, and I’m sure there are a lot of people who are either sick or caring for sick kids. If you are a student, you are likely either preparing for or taking final exams. Of course, it can also be crunch time in many jobs as well. There are plenty of parties to attend as well.
Combine this with the secular celebration of Christmas that we see in the world. On the one hand, we have retailers that don’t really want to mention the word Christmas despite making money from people buying presents for the holiday whose name they “forgot.” I’m not going to call it so much a war on Christmas as stupid secular political correctness but also unwillingness to not make the money. You can also listen to songs on the radio that speak of the such a wonderful time of year with marshmallows, caroling, mistletoe, and hearts glowing with loved ones near. However, such songs will say nary a word about why this is (or should be) so. Those are just a couple of examples.
I’m certainly not saying that we shouldn’t get gifts for people. I definitely wouldn’t suggest not doing the work that you have to do at this time. Don’t flunk your exams if you are a student! I don’t even want to suggest not going to people’s Christmas parties. We won’t bring people back to focus on Jesus Christ by offending them in this manner. The one kind of activity that I would suggest skipping out on is the ugly sweater contest. How does an ugly sweater give honor to the God who became man and came to die for our sins?
In some way, we need to take time to pray and think about how we are awaiting the coming of Our Lord. We need to prepare the way by making a good Confession. Take some time to show the love of Christ to someone less fortunate (who could even be your family members who have the flu). All we need to do is take a bit of time to think more on how we can keep the coming of Christ in our minds and hearts and act on it. Then, we can tell the world what we are celebration and the awesome reality that it is.
Category: Response
David Ancell / Saturday, November 05, 2022 / Comments(0)
During this month of November, I wanted to write about something that I’ve been seeing pop up in a number of parishes – the building and maintenance of a columbarium for the interment of cremated remains. I first saw these when I lived in North Carolina, and now there are several in Tennessee (but only one in a Catholic parish in the Nashville area). I want to highlight why this is a bad practice.
I’m not so much against the building of a columbarium as part of a Catholic cemetery, even a parish cemetery. The Church requires the interment of cremated remains in a sacred place such as a cemetery. To make this possible for Catholics who choose cremation for legitimate reasons, it makes sense to have them available. My main concern here is with a columbarium located on parish property that has no cemetery associated with it. I’ll explain why . . .
To get a greater understanding of the Church’s teachings on cremation, please check out this 2016 Document from the CDF regarding the practice. The Catholic Church once prohibited cremation as it was often done as a way to show opposition to the resurrection of the dead. In 1963, a new instruction named Piam et Constatem was issued that did allow for cremation. It’s important to note that, once cremated, the ashes are required to be buried like a body would be.
However, this instruction said that the ordinaries (eg bishops) were to ensure, through proper instruction, that “the faithful refrain from cremation and not discontinue the practice of burial except when forced to do so by necessity” and that “the Church’s adverse attitude toward cremation must be clearly evident.” In other words, the practice is not something the Church wanted to encourage but only to permit when necessary. Cremation is to be the exception rather than the rule. Burial remains the preferred practice of the Church. In fact, the need to encourage burial instead of cremation when possible is more pressing today in light of the false ideas regarding the human body that are presented by today’s society.
However, when a parish builds a columbarium, they are, by means of a bad example, essentially encouraging the practice of cremation. After all, they are allowing people to be laid to rest on the grounds of their church, but only if they are cremated. People who can and wish to conform themselves fully to the mind of the Church on this matter have to be buried elsewhere. This really sends the wrong message to people regarding the respect and reverence that is due to the body of the deceased, which was and will be again a Temple of the Holy Spirit.
In one diocese where I lived, there was a rule that, if a columbarium were built, it must be accompanied by instruction that burial is really the preferred practice. However, this is unlikely to be effective. At the same time this instruction is being provided, people are being told that they can choose to be cremated so that their remains can be interred at their church. This also communicates to people that they can feel free to disregard the customs of the Church and do whatever they prefer, which is way too common among American Catholics.
Someone once told me in (sort of) defense of the practice is that a parish was noticing that people were choosing cremation and then doing things prohibited by the Church such as scattering ashes or keeping them in their home. The columbarium was being built so that people would at least bury the ashes properly. This was a well-meaning argument, but I don’t agree. I believe it provides too much accommodation for people’s attitudes to be formed by the surrounding culture rather than by Christ and his Church when really, the truth needs to be preached.
In fact, I remember a priest, preaching at the funeral of one of my family members, tell us that what was in the casket was not our family member. I now know that is not a correct statement. It is a pagan/gnostic attitude that I’ve also heard repeated by a Protestant, though I don’t think the priest realized this. As human beings, we are made to be body and soul. When the soul separates from the body, neither are complete. The body that will decay is not the complete person, but guess what – neither is the soul! The souls in Heaven are longing for their bodily resurrection. Our bodies are not some costume or machine that we inhabit and need to be free from. They are an integral part of who we are.
There may be some people who need to choose cremation, and they need not feel as though they are incurring guilt for doing what the Church permits. However, the local parishes should not be building something that has such a potential to encourage that which is not what the Church prefers. We would be much better served by better catechesis about the body and reverence it required, not to mention our hope of the resurrection.
Category: Response
David Ancell / Wednesday, October 26, 2022 / Comments(0)
I’m not a big fan of some of the semantic games people play. Many of them seem to be used just to start arguments. For example, there were some media posts going around that were against saying a husband was “helping” around the house because it’s his job, too. I’m not sure how having responsibility precludes helping, but really, I digress . . .
There’s one usage I really do wish would die. I’ve often heard of churches speak of the “weekend Masses.” Why can’t we just say “Sunday Masses?” We celebrate the Lord’s Day on Sunday in obedience to God’s command to keep holy the Sabbath and to celebrate the resurrection of Our Lord on Sunday. Even if you attend a vigil Mass on Saturday night, as my family and I did during the pandemic, you are still going to a Sunday Mass. The ancient Jews reckoned their days from sunset to sunset, so I think they’d agree.
The weekend is a societal construct. The Sabbath is a command of God. At a time where our culture is intent on keeping us always busy, we need to remember to set aside this day. Even though it’s right next to Saturday, it’s not just part of a weekend.
David Ancell / Saturday, September 17, 2022 / Comments(0)
In my last post, I made some brief comments about “quiet quitting” (which I think is an odd term). I’ve read a number of posts about how some people are quietly quitting and what it means (and it varies a bit). I’ve also read and listened to others who are arguing against the practice. It seems that most of those who were attacking the practice were actually attacking a straw man and not what many of the proponents of “quiet quitting” were actually doing.
For a Catholic like me, this presents an opportunity to really reflect on the meaning and purpose of work and how I should approach my work. The truth is that work is essential, and everyone needs to do his fair share. If no one worked, there would be no farmers to produce food. There wouldn’t be builders to build houses. There wouldn’t be doctors to provide needed health care. We just don’t survive without work.
As a matter of justice, we need to do a full day’s work when we receive a full day’s pay. Christian charity demands that we work with a view towards meeting the needs of our employers and our customers. Working as a Christian means that our work is more than just transactional. We aim to serve and to do good for others as best as we can.
With this being said, much of the trend towards “quiet quitting” needs to be understood as a reaction, often righteous, to what was called the “hustle culture.” The term “hustle culture” simply means having to pretty much always be working. It’s true that there may be cases where someone has to work ridiculous hours for a period of time. For example, a rescue worker during a disaster may not be able to just stop working without leaving people in danger.
However, in most cases, work is becoming an idol, either to the employer or the employee (or both). I remember reading some articles on some career site that suggested the need to hide from the employer the fact that you stop working to attend your son’s baseball game. This is truly unhealthy, and any employer who has that kind of attitude doesn’t deserve its employees. It is absolutely immoral for an employer to consume a disproportionate share of the employee’s time and energy that needs to be devoted to his family.
Work has a proper place in life that should neither be diminished nor exaggerated. Many of the “quiet quitters” are reporting not that they’ve stopped trying to do a good job but that they’ve realized that there is more to life than work. People just want to be able, and should be able, to live their lives. Leisure is an important part of life. I was absolutely not surprised to find out that many people who decided to realize that now believe themselves to be more productive in their work. I’m betting that more of them are.
Most importantly, rest is actually commanded by God. God gave the Sabbath to the Jewish people, and now Christians celebrate it on Sunday. God commands us to cease from our labor most of all to worship. This is because, ultimately, we all belong to God himself.
Category: Response, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Sunday, July 31, 2022 / Comments(0)
I remember then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005 cautioning against a “dictatorship of relativism.” I thought I knew what he meant then. However, it’s far worse now. This comes to me after having just been at the Defending the Faith Conference at Franciscan University of Steubenville. If you haven’t been, I highly recommend it.
Those who are knowledgeable about the Catholic faith understand that we know that faith and human reason are not by nature opposed to each other. God is not arbitrary. He is truth and love itself. If someone asks you whether something is good because God says it is or if God says something is good because it is good, the answer is neither. God is neither arbitrary, nor is there a standard above him to which he conforms. The goodness is his very nature.
Relativism has been around for a long time now. However, it has more recently become more of a dictatorship that one could ever imagine. Our secular society is moving in a direction in which someone can declare their own truth, and it is true for them even if it is completely out of touch with reality. Even in the past, people were looked down upon if they insisted on an objective truth. The thing that makes this more of a dictatorship is that now one can be ostracized for so much as questioning someone else’s view of reality, especially regarding matters of sexuality.
People involved in the dictatorship won’t even engage others who disagree. If they come to speak somewhere, they shout him down with nothing but emotionally laden statements. They won’t engage in reasoned debate. They won’t make their case. This has been going on before to an extent, but now it has reached dictatorship status.
This presents a very unique situation in trying to explain and defend the Catholic faith. It’s going to take a lot of praying to change hearts. I think we have to start with restoring the very idea of having a reasoned debate. We have to be able to show it’s reasonable to belief the Catholic Faith, and there is a basis for it. We can substantiate what we believe simply on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Category: Response
David Ancell / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Comments(0)
I was pretty hopeful hearing of this Supreme Court ruling. The state of Maine had a program that gave parents money for private school tuition in places where there were not public schools available. However, they prohibited the use of these funds for schools that were religious in nature. Someday, I hope to see the end of the idea that the First Amendment was intended to mean that any religious idea or organization is to be excluded from public life.
This decision really doesn’t directly give an edge to faith-based schools. This may be what happens in practice, but it is based solely on the decision of the parents receiving the funding. If Maine wants to give money for school tuition where needed, the Supreme Court decision means that faith-based schools are to be treated on an equal basis with other schools. If they favored only the Baptists or the Methodists, then they’d be favoring a particular religion, and we’d have a constitutional argument. Religion is not and should not be some special category that is verboten, nor should it be discriminated against. It’s interesting that Sonia Sotomayor cites in her dissent a constitutional commitment to separation of church and state when the words aren’t in the Constitution.
What is this all about? Well, in the above article, the state of Maine argued that they wanted education to be something that was education in a “religiously neutral manner” and also “exposes children to different viewpoints and promotes tolerance and acceptance.” Are these anti-religious statements in disguise? They might be, but I do not know. However, I do believe they are a usurpation of parental authority in the education of their children. Education is ultimately the purview of the parents, not the state.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that the state will not have some say in the development of educational standards and of what should legally constitute a school. There are things kids need to learn to be able to function in society. Also, we wouldn’t want a “school” that was established solely to encourage children to be violent revolutionaries or something that like. How much authority should the state have? Well, I think that’s up for debate, and I don’t have a clear answer. However, parents do have the right to pass their faith along to their children and to expect their choice of school to respect that. Hopefully, this recent Supreme Court decision is a step in this direction.
Category: Response