OK, I know everyone is amazed that this is the 3rd post today, but I’ll keep rolling while I can. I was introduced to a new blog today called Musum Pontificalis. I think it will be funny to most people, but I’m pretty sure the vast majority of conservative Catholics will find it hilarious. It’s a spoof site pretending to be the musings of Pope Benedict XVI. Here are some highlights to convince you to go over and read it:

The ‘About Me':
“Basically, I’m just your average Joe. I like to drink beer and muse like everyone else. I love the Good Lord with all my heart and He has blessed me immensely, for which I am eternally grateful.”

On HTML:
“I am really enjoying my vacation. So far, the better part of it has been spent trying to figure out this darn HTML code stuff. They made it so you can use both < "i"> and < "em"> tags, yet I have found that they don’t always work together. Relativists! They frustrate me to no end.”

On Seinfeld:
“A few co-workers and I were standing around the water-cooler discussing Seinfeld reruns when the conversation switched gears and became a heated debate. I don’t want to be a namedropper, but these colleagues were Cardinals Ruini and Mahony.”

On Beer:
“A very dear and thoughtful friend brought me a gift from the United States. Not to be a namedropper, but it was Archbishop Levada. I was honored by his gesture and humbly accepted his generous gift. The gift was a much-appreciated case of Budweiser. I thought to myself, “ah, how exciting; it’s been a while since you’ve enjoyed a good pilsner, Joey.”

That evening, after work, I cracked one open. Having fond memories of drinking Budweiser that had been smuggled in from Czechoslovakia, I was anxious to experience that poetic dance of barley and hops upon my palate once again.

What a surprise I was in for. Far from being the smooth, yet complex pilsner I was accustomed to fifty years ago, I found it utterly repugnant and it instantly gave me a headache. For a moment I had even wondered if certain Jesuits had poisoned me.

I began to reflect on the situation and realized that my negative experience was the expected consequence of Relativism. You see; this is precisely what happens in a Relativistic society. Terms like “good beer” become subjective. In this case, even the word “beer” seems to be subjective. Society can no longer trust labels and there is no honor to a man’s word.”

On modern technology:
“I marvel at modern technology and what can be done with it; if it were only used for good the world would be a much better place. As I am musing to you via my Blackberry, I was struck by how modern technology, particularly computer code, demonstrates to us how unworkable the Relativist system is.
…
Anyway, the stewardess has just informed me that I am not allowed to use cellular devices on the plane, so I have to go.”

On web browsers:
“You see, dear children, your Papa was unwittingly operating contrary to the principles laid out in the encyclical by Pope Leo XIII of happy memory, Rerum Novarum. In using the browser that came packaged with my computer’s operating system, I was supporting the efforts of a monopoly bent on dictating the market and denying computer programmers their dignity to create and market superior products that will benefit all of society, especially the poor.

As is so often the case with issues of social injustice, you can find Relativism in operation behind the scenes. Considering the web browser issue, the relativist would say the common good is defined by whoever controls the market. To them, the only operating principle is the power to control, and there are no principles directing the means to gain that control.

The resulting consequences are price gouging, lack of innovation, inconsistently applied standards and their forfeiting of security in order to maintain their dual monopoly in the market place.

For this reason, Fr. Norbert is going to install something called Firefox. He informs me that it will change the way I browse forever. He has also assured me that it is the product of benevolent individuals working for the common good, rather than the fruits of a monopoly or some socialist utopian scheme thought up by some Jesuits.”

On his brother:
“You see dear children, when George and I were young, we used to play priest. Oh what fun we had! One day when we were playing, George said that he just got word from Rome, that there was a conclave and the cardinals elected him pope, and that as his first pontifical act he was going to excommunicate me for using his football without asking (that is a soccer ball to you Americans).

I was so upset that I was beside myself. I begged him to lift the excommunication, but he refused. He held that thing over my head for years it seemed. It may not seem like a big deal now, but at the time I was traumatized over the whole thing. What is beautiful about Providence is that there really was a conclave and take a wild guess as to who was elected pope? That’s right – your Papa Ratzi. Perhaps when George is released from the hospital and we know everything is OK, I’ll remind him of the time he “borrowed” my bicycle without asking.”

Great stuff, don’t you think?

I recently got a copy of the book The Bones of St. Peter that has been out of print for a long time. For the longest time the cheapest version of the book I could find was about $75. From my best research it seems that not a lot were printed but the book remains in high demand. I finally found a copy for $25 and was elated that it was also in “Like New” condition (note to seller: being as yellow as a book could be after 20 years of sitting on a shelf is NOT “Like New” despite the fact that the binding and pages are in good shape). Once I got it I was severely disappointed to find out how small of a book it is. I was expecting some 500 page technical manuscript of the escavation that was the size and weight of a textbook. So when this 200 page novel sized book showed up, I was a little disheartened (but not as disheartened to see that right now at Amazon.com there are 3 copies available under $40. Where were these books over the last year!?!)

As such, it was with a little hesititation that I started reading it earlier this week. I’m only a few chapters in but this book is GRIPPINGLY GREAT. I’m loving every page and learning lots of REALLY interesting stuff. Stuff that is even MORE interesting when you know just enough Church history to be dangerous.

For those who don’t know (and I expect both my readers do not), in the 1960’s Pope Paul VI pronounced that an excavation underneath St. Peter’s bascilica had found the actual tomb and bones of St. Peter (yes, that St. Peter). It was a long held tradition that he was buried underneath the bascilica (underneath the high altar to be exact), but over the centuries the proof that he was down there had become obscure enough to warrant some doubt even amongst those sympathetic to the Church. Of course a papal announcement is about as believeable as The DaVinci Code in certain circles, so this book was written to make the case that they had indeed found St. Peter’s body.

It is written in a narrative fashion explaining why the excavation was started and how that led to further excavations. I’m still just getting started, but some interesting things have come out that I didn’t know:

1. The current St. Peter’s bascilica was built in the 16th century (I knew that) on top of the previous St. Peter’s bascilica (I didn’t know that there was a previous one). It is interesting to note that (assuming I’ve got my dates right) Martin Luther went to Rome on his pilgrimage that convinced him that the Catholic Church was inherently corrupt during the period that the old St. Peter’s was being torn down to build a new one right on top of the old. Particularly if you didn’t have much reverence for St. Peter (which was the cause for not just building a new one right next door, since his tomb was supposedly under the high altar of the old bascilica) I could see why he could see the Church as wasteful and obsessed with money and power. I’m sure, at least in Luther’s mind, the old one was perfectly fine. Why build a new one other than to impress and gain power? (In actuality, I guess the old one was having major structural problems).

2. The first bascilica was built ON TOP of a PAGAN graveyard. (It was built in the 4th century by Constantine).

3. The first bascilica was itself built in an exceedingly difficult location to build a church because it was a hillside that had to be leveled to accomodate a church (and even the old one was one humongous church).

4. The new bascilica’s floor is about 8 feet higher than the old bascilica’s floor. The old bascilicas floor is now the floor of what is called “The Grottos” and it is where Catholic people of prominence (including Pope John Paul II) have been buried since the new bascilica’s completion.

5. What started this whole escavation was a desire to make an effective basement out of the center of “The Grottos” (the graves are around the outside). When they first started digging they encountered a pagan tomb. Construction was stopped and the escavation began.

6. There were numerous “folklore” stories about what was underneath the bascilica with lots of stories (with too many vague details to be believeable) about discoveries during previous construction stories. During the escavation of the pagan graveyard they found that a number of these “folklores” were in fact mostly based in truth.

7. The high altar, the location of St. Peter’s tomb, has been so revered over the centuries that no one dared tear it down to make a new altar (which was done every few hundred years for asthetic purposes). The result is that in their attempt to get to St. Peter’s tomb they had to carefully tear into layers upon layers of walls that all were from previous altars. And oh yeah, nobody has plans or pictures that show what the majority of these altars looked like before they built on top of them or even exactly how many altars have been built. And just to make it “interesting” the Pope was very explicit that destroying or significantly damaging these ancient altars was unacceptable.

8. And that’s about it… so far… fascinating stuff. I recommend picking up the book if you can find a copy at a reasonable price.

About a year ago I realized that probably the best avenue to win over the public regarding abortion was the number of “disability abortions”. The reality is that the vast majority of all abortions are done for one of two reasons (in order of volume):

1. Post conception birth control (said more politically correctly: ending an “unwanted pregnancy”)
2. Ending pregnancies of disabled children

Sadly, the task of convincing American’s of the evils of #1 has proven a difficult task mostly, in my opinion, because of the explicit acceptance of contraception breeds (excuse the pun) implicit acceptance of post conception contraception. In contrast, because of Hitler, eugenics are roundly condemned by Americans.

Thankfully, Americans are very simpathetic to the rights of disabled people and as such realize the evils of eugenics. As such I believe we can convince Americans that a ban on abortion for fetuses that have a disability is a very important ban to have. When they realize the extent both in numbers and in percentages of babies with disabilities that are aborted solely because their life will be “less meaningful” than most children, they’re see an evil that needs to be prevented. The best example to point to is Down Syndrome because people with Down Syndrome live long, happy lives (unlike some disabilities that can be painful and cut life short). There is no reason to abort a Down Syndrome baby other than eugenic reasons.

In this vein, this article is a very important one to pass along to your friends.