Bad Marketing Ideas - Just the Thing For That Notre Dame Grad in Your Family

I ran across this will doing some research on a monastery in Iowa. I'm amazed.

Notre Dame Caskets and Urns

Trappist Caskets, in partnership with the University of Notre Dame, now offers an exclusive line of custom-designed caskets and urns for Notre Dame alumni and their families.

As a work of the monks of New Melleray Abbey, Trappist Caskets are built on a long tradition that combines a reverence for nature with a preference for old-world craftsmanship. available, much of it coming from the monastery’s own award-winning forest.

All caskets, urns, and register books come with an engraved seal authorized by the University of Notre Dame. Included in the purchase of a casket or urn is a complimentary Guest Register Book and four family keepsake crosses. These keepsake crosses are in addition to the removable cross that comes on the lid of each casket and urn.

A Good Read - The Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Not your usual estate sale. An entire Episcopal church closing in Kansas City. Church, parsonage, school, rectory, everything. It was kinda sad.

But there is always a bright side. Among the many many books at the sale, I ran across a copy of The Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Hershel Shanks, which is one of the best histories and layman's explanation of the Dead Sea Scrolls (it is certainly the most readable). In a whole bunch of different ways, a completely fascinating book. First, the history of the discovery of the scrolls, and how they were obtained against the backdrop of the birth of the State of Israel. Shanks is remarkably even in his hind-sight look at history, even when discussing in incidents and individuals he clearly found objectionable. For example, while he clearly took issue with the composition of the original scroll team (primarily Catholic priests, and no Jews), he does clarify that the team was technically employed by the Jordanian Government, which would never have countenanced Jewish involvement.

Alternately, Shanks tends to defer a bitt too much to the professional reputations of the original scroll scholars, even though he was a lifelong critic of their slowness and secretiveness regarding their findings. What does come through, however, between the lines was that many of the scholars and their financial sponsors acted very badly, at times almost childishly, regarding their research and their place in history.

In one part of the book I found a bit head scratching, Shanks at length describes his puzzlement at a prohibition in the scrolls against spitting. Frankly, I didn't think it strange at all. Most of the Jewish dietary and ritualistic prohibitions, such as not eating pork, have their ancient origin in health and disease prevention roots. A prohibition against spitting, which spreads diseases like tuberculosis, is entirely logical (as it is in China today). Just because this particular restriction died out in the Jewish traditions over time, I couldn't see why Shanks found it so unusual, or improbable.

Finally, Shanks does an excellent job in tying together biblical history with that of the the scrolls and making is accessible for the layman. Shanks is clearly more comfortable, and much more scholarly in his knowledge of the relevance of the Old Testament to the scrolls. Frankly, I found his references between the scrolls and books of the New Testament to be somewhat unsupportable, if not a little far fetched.

For anyone wanting a basic introduction and history to the Dead sea Scrolls, this is the first book to read.

The Pope's Gambit? The Times of London has a New York Times Moment

Zoinks! I read in awe the hyperbolic Times of London article "Pope's gambit could see 1,000 quit Church of England", written by one Ruth Gledhill - ostensibly The Times' "Religion Correspondent". Which religion she normally corresponds on isn't all that clear, but it certainly is not reassuring when the "Religion Correspondent" of the Times possesses such an appaullingly superficial understanding of the Roman Catholic Church. Oh, where to start?

"As many as 1,000 priests could quit the Church of England and thousands more may leave churches in America and Australia under bold proposals to welcome Anglicans to Rome".

Well, not that bold actually, and not all that new, since Anglican/Episcopalian priests, including those who are married, have been converting to Roman Catholicism for almost thirty years, since the practice was approved by the Pope in 1980. It's a rather tiny number, with a handful of married Catholic priests running around here and there. The only thing that has changed is that the Church is formalizing a more distinct mechanism for 'managing' Anglican converts - a move thought necessary by Rome following a spike in conversion requests over the past few years resulting from problems internal to the Anglican Church. The biggest change, actually, is a result of nothing more than volume: rather than having to enter existing Roman Catholic seminaries to "re-blue" as Catholic priests (the current practice), converting Anglicans will be allowed to establish their own seminaries, and churches will be allowed to retain some elements of the Anglican rite. But to characterize it as a sneaky poaching operation foisted upon the Anglican Church by Rome is ridiculous. OK, the next line is even sillier:

"Entire parishes and even dioceses could be tempted to defect after Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to offer a legal structure to Anglicans joining the Roman Catholic Church".

Again, nothing new here. This has been happening since 1980. For example, in 1991 St. Mary the Virgin Episcopal Church in Arlington, Texas, became St. Mary the Virgin Catholic Church, with the entire congregation becoming full members of the Catholic Church. The congregation voted on the change, and the pastor of the church was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest. So, once again, no real news here.

"Anglicans privately accused Rome of poaching and attacked Dr Williams for capitulating to the Vatican. Some called for his resignation. Although there was little he could have done to forestall the move, many were dismayed at his joint statement..."

Anglicans? Some? Many? The lack of clarity in this bold, unsubstatiated statement is astounding. And no good article about the Catholic Church isn't complete without a bit of the ol' Pope-bashing:

"The Pope has already shown his determination to reunite Christendom at almost any price, welcoming back the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X despite a Holocaust-denying bishop in its ranks."

Here, Ms Gledhill, the "Religion Correspondent", shows her pretty-near absolute ignorance of Canon Law and the SSPX matter. The "traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X" has not been "welcomed back". Unfortunately, Ms Gledhill apparently does not understand the difference between disciplinary actions and doctrinal differences. Yes, the Pope lifted the excommunications of 4 SSPX bishops - but excommunications are individual punishments, not collective. The status of the SSPX itself, as a religious order, has not changed, as the Pope highlighted in his 10 March 2009 letter following the Williamson brouhaha (and, yes, Mr Williamson - I would not dignify him by addressing him as Fr or Rev - is indeed an air-thief):

"The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

Of course, The Times correspondent could have easily fact-checked this, as it's all on the Vatican's website and easily searchable. But why let a few facts and understanding get in the way of a facile and easy bias.

By the by, I did visit the SSPX 'campus' in Kansas last year, where they run their own church and school. And, yes, in my opinion, they are total wack-jobs. Even if the SSPX order as a whole isn't quite as anti-Semitic as the ADL paints them, the atavistic views of some of their key leaders regarding Judaism puts them firmly at odds with the the Church's current relationship and doctrine regarding the Jews and the Jewish faith. So they aren't Roman Catholics. No matter how much they want to be. So there.

Oh, the photo - a beautiful little 100+ year-old settler church on the prairie in Saskatchewan, from my October 2008 road trip. A pleasant stop to stretch, meditate, and contemplate.