What’s an old Catholic church in Flatbush, New York, to do when summer heat bakes the old stone, un-air-conditioned building? Of course, they turn to a Big Ass Fan. No, really that’s what it’s called.

A Kentucky company with a wicked name - Big Ass Fans - is putting one of its industrial-sized machines in an unlikely place: a Brooklyn Catholic church.

The nearly century-old Our Lady of Refuge Church in Flatbush, where the congregation dwindles every summer because of scorching heat, plans to install the 240-pound fan next weekend.

“Oh my gosh!” church business administrator Judy Agard said. “We might have to change the name. It’s a church!”

I also like the name of the parish: Our Lady of Refuge. Now with the B.A.F., that’s what this church will be: a refuge from the heat. The fan has a 24-foot diameter and 10 steel blades—now inscribed with the autographs of the donors who ponied up the $7,500 to install it.

“The name of the company isn’t something that you’d want to put in print, but I had to laugh - it is a big-ass fan,” said Ronald Holder, a parishioner since 1980 who helped spearhead a fund-raising bid that began last year.

Big Ass Fans director of sales Paul Lauritzen said that since 1999 the company has installed its large fans at about 50 churches nationwide, insisting the name has not yet offended the churchgoing public.

Frankly, I wish our parish had a B.A.F. in it. Here in New England, you don’t find many air-conditioned churches either and it can get stifling.

Some time ago I responded to an email offer to bloggers from a group called Lighthouse Catholic Media. They sell CDs containing talks from noted Catholic speakers and to expand their business they were offering a portion of sales to bloggers who placed LCM ads on their blogs. I did so because I thought it would be a win-win: readers get good Catholic content and I get financial support for the blog. Unfortunately, that financial support never materialized—I don’t think I got a single affiliate payment—and then the other side of LCM became apparent.

Lighthouse Catholic Media operates like a multi-level marketing scheme that just won’t let go. They send a constant stream of emails with strategies for selling and how to increase sales and how to market to all your friends and neighbors and fellow parishioners and pastor, etc. There are constant invitations to regional call-in sales meetings and state call-in sales meetings and local call-in sales meetings. It’s like “Glen Garry Glen Ross” without the cursing.

And no matter how many times I’ve asked them to stop emailing me, how many times I’ve politely informed them that I no longer wish to take part, no matter how many times I’ve firmly ordered them to stop or I will report them to their Internet Service Provider as a spammer, they. Won’t. Stop. Emailing. Me!

So they’ve asked for it. I’m now exposing them as the slimy Internet spammers they are who seem to be more interested in the number of sales they can make and how much money they can earn over the content of their “Catholic” CDs. Their attitude clearly shows they could just as easily be peddling real estate CDs or little cans of SPAM for all their attention they give to, you know, the Gospel.

My advice: Stay away from Lighthouse “Catholic” Media. they are a sleazy outfit I would not trust with my credit card and would not enrich in any way.

I received several good comments in response to my inquiry about the hypothetical instance of invalid and valid consecrations by concelebrants at the same Mass. This response was too long for the combox, but is of such detail and is so worthwhile that I’m posting here with the permission of its author, who asked to remain anonymous. I think I can reveal that this contributor has done advanced studies in theological areas:

At the very least, I think we have to say that a Mass in which principal celebrant says the wrong words of consecration is of doubtful validity. The Holy See has never issued a responsium ad dubium to this question but I would tend to lean toward the idea that the Mass is not valid in the case you mention for the following reasons.

The concelebrants do not hold the species. The principal celebrant does. It’s his hands that are holding the species and connecting his words to the species in his hands.

First, we must remember that there is a distinction between the sacrament and the sacrifice of the Mass-—the sacrament is the Real Presence in the elements, the sacrifice the offering of Christ to the Father. Traditionally, the sacrifice is effected/consummated when the celebrant receives both species. Hence, a priest who consecrates both species but receives only one has validly confected the sacrament but has not consummated the sacrifice (and while this does not invalidate the sacrament itself, it does invalidate the Mass and the priest should not receive a stipend for it). The same is true if a priest consecrates one species but unintentionally not the other (e.g., speaking the words of consecration of the bread over both species). The properly consecrated species is validly confected, even if the other is not-—although now the sacrifice is not complete until the other species is confected and received by the priest. In the Middle Ages, there were questions of what to do when a priest dies in between consecrations. Universally, the answer was always that another priest should finish with the rest of Mass so that the sacrifice may be completed. The importance of this point is not to be underestimated. The Code of Canon Law Canon 927 says explicitly, “It is absolutely forbidden, in even extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the Eucharistic celebration.” The Latin here for “absolutely forbidden” is actually nefas, which has no proper English translation but is an ancient word which is related to something like “against the divine will.” It’s used only six times in the Code, and this is one of them. Though the Canon does not mention the validity of such a consecration, the importance of the sacrifice is highlighted here.

The celebrant must hold the sacred species

Read the rest of the blog entry...

During daily Mass today, the priest in his homily said that since we’re all one big happy family, we should hug one another during the Sign of Peace. For my part I said to my buddy sitting next to me, “Don’t even think about it.”

Yes, I hear all the time how stiff and frozen we New England, European-heritage Catholics are, especially compared to our Hispanic brethren. Hey, I thought we were all about cultural diversity. Well, in my culture we don’t get all huggy with strangers and mere acquaintances. At least, I don’t.

I have several reasons for my stance. For one thing, this was a Mass at my workplace in the new Archdiocesan Pastoral Center. Even though this is a religious celebration, I think it would be inappropriate for me to start hugging my co-workers. Second, while the people to my left and right were men—in which case a biff to the shoulder is as close to a hug as they’ll get from me—in front and behind me were women, including three much younger, unmarried women.

Maybe I’m old fashioned or just over-sensitive, but out of respect for my wife, as a policy with rare exceptions, I don’t hug women outside my family, especially younger unmarried women. (One exception was last Friday when one of my long-time temps left us. She wanted to give me a hug in thanks and goodbye and I agreed since it was her last day and it seemed to be the thing to do at the moment.) It seems to me that a hug is just too intimate to be shared with just anyone, only one step removed from a kiss. You may say I’m being silly, but I say that it’s a partially a byproduct of an oversexualized culture and partially my own desire to make hugging more than just a fleeting fancy.

Maybe I’m old fashioned or just over-sensitive, but out of respect for my wife ... I don’t hug women outside my family.

Several years ago I volunteered in my parish’s youth ministry program and the youth minister, an old friend, insisted that the adult volunteers should be giving all the kids hugs whenever we see them because they don’t normally feel the love from the Church. (Suffice to say that this was pre-2002.) I flatly refused because that just seemed like he was asking for problems. Sure enough, the program’s decline started about the time one of the volunteers was revealed as showing too much interest in one of the kids. Nothing illegal, immoral, or even unethical, just … inappropriate.

Now, if you’re one of those affectionate people who likes to hug everyone you meet, that’s fine for you. But keep in mind that there are those of us out there who don’t feel the same way, so please don’t get offended. It’s just not my culture and cultural differences aren’t bad. They’re just different.

Photo credit: Kalandrakas on Flickr. Used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license.

Here’s a quick liturgy question. If two priests are concelebrating Mass and the principal concelebrant messes with the words of consecration to such an extent as to render the Mass invalid normally, but the co-celebrant uses the correct formulation, is the Mass still invalid? And what does the person in the pew do if he’s sure of what the principal celebrant said, but not sure what the co-celebrant said?

This is theoretical, but relevant I think.

A new blog from Jeff Vehige called St. Peter Canisius Apostolate, with the stated goal of catechizing the Catholic faithful. Current posts include a series of reflections on the Vatican II document on the liturgy called Sacrosanctum Concilium, a list of “five books every Catholic should read”; a series called “Fridays with the Fathers,” as in the early Church fathers; and “Tuesdays with”, not Morrie, but “St. Thomas”. Looks like good meaty intellectual stuff.

Talk about your small world. I just found out today that a fellow on Twitter who follows me is the son of good friend from church. The guy, Marc, starting following me a few weeks ago. He and his wife live in Salem and he’s a web developer, so I decided to follow him back as it’s nice to get to know new people. Today, he put up a link to photos of his one-year-old daughter at her birthday being held by his dad. So I click on the link—I’m a sucker for baby daughter photos—and, lo and behold, his dad is my friend Paul and then I see his wife, my friend Kris. (Who also reads this blog; Hi Kris!) What are the odds?

Melanie talks about similar small-world encounters, like her friend Betsy who is also a reader of my blog who suddenly, one day, realized that the Melanie I was talking about marrying was her friend Melanie.

It’s funny that I seem to have these types of encounters a lot. It really is a small world.

Photo credit: bass nroll at Flickr.com. Used under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license.

A friend of my sister-in-law dropped me an email the other day. She’s getting married and wanted some advice. She knows that Melanie and I eschewed the traditional DJ for our reception and instead went with a series of playlists on my iPod hooked up to a speaker system.

Yes, horrifying and terribly gauche, I know, but we were trying to be economical and neither us liked the idea of a disc jockey imposing his personality on our reception. It went mostly well, after the decided not to use the expensive performance monitors I borrowed from a friend and just ran it through the hall’s stereo system.

So my s-i-l’s friend said she didn’t think her fiancé’s taste in music was right for a reception and, based on what she’d heard, thought mine might be a better fit. I’m flattered, of course, and so I told her I’d share the playlist from our wedding reception. Keep in mind that these songs come from both me and Melanie. Can you guess which music comes from each of us?

There are three playlists: Before and during dinner; after dinner; and other. Dinner and mingling music has a distinctly different flavor from dancing music and I wanted the dinner music to start quiet and light and build up throughout the meal to something more festive in preparation for the energetic party music. Keep in mind, however, that our idea of party music is not just dance music. Neither of us have ever been much into clubbing and dancing, so our taste there could be considered … eclectic. The “other” playlist are songs that I wanted to have to toss in here and there. Some are fun, some have special meaning.

The Lists, after the jump:

Read the rest of the blog entry...

Ten years ago when I was telling people about the Internet and how the Vatican was setting up a web site, an image I often used to described the promise of this new medium was that of access to previously difficult-to-access information. I would point out that the Vatican’s libraries hold ancient manuscripts, including millennia-old copies of the Bible, that only very few accredited scholars would ever get to see and wait until the day those manuscripts are imaged and put online for anyone in the world to see at their own computers.

That day has come.

The British Library has announced that it will make the complete Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest, most complete Bible in the world dating from around 350 AD, available online for the first time and all in once piece for the first time in decades. The Codex Sinaiticus, so named because it was discovered in St. Catherine Monastery on Mount Sinai in 1844, has been divided in pieces almost from the time of the discovery, with large sections being held in Britain; Leipzig, Germany; and St. Petersburg, Russia. As of Thursday, high-resolution images of 100 pages will be available at www.codex-sinaiticus.net and the rest will be added over the next year.

Think of what this will mean for scholarship of all kinds. Whereas research on rare or precious documents used to be limited to those with access and the ability to travel to far-flung places, now scholars and non-scholars will be able to get a better view of the document than even if they were physically present. (You’d never be allowed to actually touch such a precious treasure.)

Democrat House lawmakers in Massachusetts are mad at their leadership because they’re being forced to vote on a same-sex marriage bill in an election year.

“He has no concern for the members,” said one legislator, who requested anonymity. “This is stuff we should be dealing with in the first year (of the session). It’s a lose-lose for anyone facing a challenger.”

Let that sink in for a second. Despite their claims, the politicians admit that the same-sex so-called marriage is so unpopular with the voters, even in liberal Massachusetts, that they don’t want to be held accountable for their vote. Instead they’d prefer to expand it into the rest of the United States, but only if they can do so when they have the maximum possible time to let voters forget. Or they could emulate their craven Senate brethren and just hold a voice vote so as to avoid being counted in the crowd.

These are your legislators, ladies and gentlemen. Cowards.

The fact is that they know that if they let democracy actually work, they would never be able to push their re-engineering deconstruction of society forward. This is why they also hide behind legislative tricks and gimmicks to avoid allowing a popular referendum on a constitutional amendment. It’s the traditional disdain for the average voter inherent in the liberal worldview. They see all of us as so bigoted, so stupid, so incapable of doing the “right” thing— as they envision it—that they must circumvent our right to self-governance and impose the solutions of a minority on the majority. We don’t live in a democracy nor a constitutional republic anymore. We are ruled by oligarchs who blind us with bread and circuses, or to use a more updated phrase, earmarks and pork-barrel spending.

The good news is that the legislators are feeling the pressure and are worried that going on the record today will affect their electoral chances in November. It means that constituents are contacting their legislators. Some representatives’ offices are reporting that calls, emails, and letters are coming in 6-1 against the bill that would repeal a 1913 law that keeps Massachusetts from spreading her errors.

(The law makes it illegal for out-of-staters to be married in Massachusetts if the marriage would be illegal in their home state. Homosexual lobbyists make much of the fact that the law’s original intent was to prevent “miscegenation” or mixed-race marriages. Whatever the original intent of the law, it’s effect today is to prevent out-of-state homosexuals and lesbians from getting marriage licenses in Massachusetts and then suing back home by invoking the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution. The clear propaganda goal here is not just to repeal the law, but also to create the mental equivalence in the minds of the public between race and sexual preference.)

Photo: Kjetil Ree (Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0)

I’ve received a request from the Fresh Air Fund to let you all know that they are looking for families in various parts of the country to host 200 children during part of August. Their program helps disadvantaged urban youths experience suburban and rural life for a brief time. They’re especially looking for families willing to open their homes to older kids, especially 9 to 12-year-old boys.

They have a variety of open dates depending on what part of the country you’re in. From August 15-22 they’re looking especially for families in or near Acton, Hopkinton, Lexington, Marlboro, and Wayland and from August 15-25, they need families who be on Cape Cod. There are many other parts of the country where they have need as well.

According to their site, The Fresh Air Fund has provided free summer vacations to New York City children from disadvantaged communities since 1877. If you can’t host, they’re also looking for donors to support their programs.

I realized I have not kept you all updated on my mom’s knee problem since my last request for prayers. The short version is that she’s doing really well.

If you recall, earlier this year she had to have one of her two artificial knees removed because of a persistent infection and then had to wait several months for all traces of the infection to disappear, remaining wheelchair-bound for the entire time.

Finally, in June, she had a new knee put in, which was somewhat harrowing because we knew that if this one didn’t take, there was no other option but to do without. Thankfully, the operation was a success and a month later mom is now up and walking about. Yes, for the next eight weeks she has to take it easy and use a cane and be careful how she places her feet, but for the moment she is much more mobile than she’s been in a long time.

I’m still praying that she makes a full recovery and then some, but until then the situation is looking good. Thank you for your prayers. Thank God for his tender mercies.

As we were driving to and from the farmer’s market Saturday morning, all of the intersections in Salem were clogged with pink-shirted peddlers raising money for the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Melanie and I agreed that until the group —and other groups supporting research—was truly open to looking at all the possible sources of breast cancer, such as birth control pills, we were interested in giving them our money.

I’m not saying that I’m convinced that the Pill is the source of breast cancer. It’s much too complex for a layman like me to draw a conclusion like that. But it’s ideology, not science, that prevents organizations like Komen and the American Cancer Society and others from even being open to the possibility.

But even a cursory glance at the scientific data shows that something is up. Consider the Global Cancer Statistics, 2002 in “CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians”, published by the same American Cancer Society. Look at the incidence of breast cancer across the various regions of the world. North America is number one with 99.5 per 100,000 women, while Middle Africa is lowest. The most developed countries are all grouped at the top of the chart, while the least developed are at the bottom. The same goes for ovarian cancer, with almost the exact same chart. Why?

There could be many factors, including diet, exposure to chemicals prevalent in First World consumer goods, etc. But when you consider that 22.9 percent of all women in the US 15-44 years old use a form of chemical contraception, (PDF from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Survey of Family Growth; see Table 56, “Number of women 15–44 years of age and percent distribution by current contraceptive status and method, according to age at interview: United States, 2002”). Another 16.7 percent seek surgical sterilization. In what ways do these artificial frustrations of the body’s natural systems contribute to cancer in a part of the body intimately associated with the reproductive process?

(Incidentally, I’ve found a number of online sources that claim 80 to 90 percent of women 15-44 use contraception, which is only true if you include all forms of regulating births, even natural family planning! This “90-percent” is used to push young women into accepting prescriptions for the Pill, convincing them that “everyone’s doing it” and that it’s completely normal and safe. I’ve known young, faithful Catholic women who were convinced by their doctors to take the Pill to regulate and suppress their periods. Anything to get them on the Pill.)

The fact is that while liberals have blasted conservatives for introducing ideology into vital health education with regard to abstinence-only sex education, it is liberals who have put ideology ahead of science in cancer prevention and research. God forbid that one should suggest that perhaps unfettered sexual license does have consequences. For too many of them the Pill represents freedom from male oppression, freedom to emulate the worst impulses of the male psyche. Well, that “freedom” comes with a price.