Oh... They've Been Shot!

Every American high school graduate who managed to stay awake for the 10-15 minutes that the standard curriculum devotes to the history of World War I can tell you who Archduke Francis Ferdinand was, and how his dramatic assassination was (at least according to the over-simplified account usually given) the catalyst that set Europe ablaze. While the high school curriculum for WWII is far more comprehensive, you are far less likely to have heard of King Alexander of Yugoslavia and French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou, whose assassinations¹ contributed to the latter war's prologue .I found out about these historical figures, and their dramatic deaths, only after idly bouncing around from one video search to another on Youtube.

Although the instants of the bullets' penetration is not caught on film, and the ensuing melee prevents the photographer from focusing entirely on the dramatis personae, the footage is nonetheless suspenseful and mesmerizing. The closeup of King Alexander's face after he gets in the car , for instance, shows an uneasy man in need of deep breaths; as if he anticipates his demise and is now striving only to have his final minutes pass with some small measure of regal aplomb. The unscripted raw feeling is impossible to miss.

The unedited footage alone would be food for thought. What I find really fascinating, though, are the editorial perspectives of the Youtube clips in which the footage is set. The first clip is a Bulgarian nationalist propaganda film. Here it is for your viewing pleasure.



The accompanying tune is really catchy... and morbid. The lyrics are thus

True and extraordinary but the extraordinary happens, In a far away city of Marseilles there are united autonomists and brother Croatians. Now a king departs on a luxury ship, from the town of Dubrovnik and he sleeps peacefully while he sails the wide ocean and destiny waits in Marseilles. There he is honoured by Minister Barthou and his mighty generals; where they all gather to hold a council of war against poor Macedonia. The people they gather the crowds enormous and they chant "long may he live" but from the crowd a lone voice is heard "Death to tyrants". For there stands also Vlado Chernozemski all the way from Macedonia, he starts to run alongside the automobile in his hand a pistol is seen. King Alexander starts to plead and to Vlado he begs: "please Vlado, don't do this Vlado, don't kill me". to the King Vlado replies proud and true, understand this you tyrant, I've been sent by Vancho Mihailoff himself to deliver our verdict. Now stand up, stand up you Serbian dog I'm going to execute you. the pistol fires the King he expires long live Macedonia! Somewhere it is known, known and remembered throughout all of Europe, that the Macedonians' oppression will not be forgiven Death to all tyrants!

The comments givent in response to this video take the preceding lyrics to heart, to say the least, and make one relieved to know that that neck of the woods is still under intense UN scrutiny.

The other setting in which this footage is found is an old-school WWII-era news reel, shown here.




The melodramatic narrative is typical of news reels of the time, I think. What I find especially lovely is the locution at 1:58 : "Oh , they've been shot!" . One is reminded of "Oh! the humanity!" from the narrative of the Hindenburg disaster. I think the "Oh" is what makes the delivery sound contrived. A more dramatic, and more slowly rendered, "They've been shot," would seem to command more gravity. Afterall, most of the Bulgarian nationalist comments probably could be translated with something along the lines of "Oh, they've been shot! (yay!)"

¹Later forensic investigations would reveal that the death of Louis Barthou was most likely the result of a stray bullet from French law enforcement, a claim rejected by die-hard conspiracy theorists. For more details on this, see the Wikipedia article.

Whereof One Cannot Speak, Thereof One Must Remain Silent

The following US News and World Report blog entry is quite typical of much of the press coverage coming in the wake of Pope Benedict XVI having lifted a renegade Holocaust-denying bishops excommunication:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/2/5/pope-should-excommunicate-holocaust-denying-bishop-williamson.html

For better or worse, you can't get excommunicated for being a liar or a moron, only for heresy (and for other specific nasties, like assaulting a bishop etc.). Denying the holocaust is certainly stupid and insensitive, but it dos not fit into the actually rather narrow class of offenses that canonically entail excommunication.

This whole row illustrates how problematic the secular press's coverage of fairly nuanced internal ecclesiastical matters can be. Here we have a journalist suggesting that he pope excommunicate someone permanently (this is not even permissible.. excommunication is only a medicinal remedy, the purpose of which is final reconciliation) and I somehow doubt Ms. Erbe bothered to crack open the Code of Canon Law. For her to give such sweeping criticism in this case exhibits about as much journalistic responsibilitt as suggesting the impeachment of a civil government officer without bothering to research the pertinent constitutional statutes.

It's time to turn off the hot air and for those who want to chime on this, including Chancellor Merkel, to calm down and do their research. Obviously, the pope's timing in this matter reveals a clear lack of political savvy ( I frankly find how very "human" he is to be refreshing), and certainly there could have been better catechesis put forth for the Catholic faithful (on excommunication in general) and more effective education of the press in this matter. Maybe once people put their critical thinking hats back on they might find some wisdom in Sean Cardinal Omalley's observation to the effect that the more clout the pope has with people like Bishop Williamson more likely he will be able to rein in their nonsense.

I am by no means a model Catholic and I have my own gripes with the church, but I will always defend the Catholic Church (or any other idea or institution) against intellectually dishonest criticism.

Why SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM is in Keeping With the "Spirit of Vatican II"

This is an extremely abridged version of an essay I am currently working on. I apologize for the lack of complete references/footnotes. It is a work in progress, so check back periodically to read the latest additions.

Most of the commentaries on Summorum Pontificum, especially those published in the secular press before the document's formal promulgation, seem to focus on its conciliatory aspect¹. That is, from such commentaries the reader would infer that the aim of the motu proprio is primarily on the narrow goal of achieving reconciliation with post-conciliar schismatics , nostalgic for the old days (such as the Society of St. Pius X), and accommodating young anachronists swept away by the old rite's novelty. Such a portrayal, however, gives only a narrow glimpse (and a condescending one at that) of the document's true import, and it does not take any liturgical expertise to see that the Holy Father has a much grander vision in mind. In articulating the correctness of an hermeneutic of continuity, rather than rupture, for understanding the ramifications of the council (with respect to the liturgy in particular), he writes

In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place

The extraordinary use of the one Roman Rite is thus something that ought to be preserved, even if there were no schismatics or nostalgic curmudgeons demanding it. But why is it worth preserving? Below we shall see that the "revival" of the extraordinary use, far from detracting from the spirit of Vatican II, should be construed as both having a basis in the council's teachings and as helping to fulfill the council's mission. These assertions shall be argued from the post-conciliar applications of the principles of inculturation and ecumenism, respectively.

Since the Second Vatican Council, Inculturation has loomed large in the project of liturgical reform. For our purposes, we will loosely define this term to mean an effort to ensure that the cultural riches of the various peoples who compose the church militant are preserved and accorded their rightful place in public worship. Whether or not inculturation is a good thing is a topic for another article. Let us assume,for the moment, that it is beneficial and that it has been one of the successes of post-conciliar reform.

One can find very vivid examples of inculturation even in papal liturgies. John Allen gives, for example an account of the indigenous celebrations that were featured during the canonization of Juan Diego. Such celebrations, I surmise, give those participating a sense of reclaiming their heritage and integrating that heritage with the tradition of their faith. It could be argued, that inculturation rights a wrong; in some cases (as in Latin America), it is a corrective to the cultural genocide that denied the rightful place of indigenous heritage in the salvific work of the church.

If the preceding is true( and I think that many zealous post-conciliar reformers would agree that it is) and if in fact the denial of the importance of indigenous heritage was in some cases a sort of cultural genocide, then the complete replacement of the church's preconciliar patrimony with Marty Haugen's "Mass of Creation" could be described as cultural suicide. It is some how incongruous to suggest that suddenly there is room for native exorcism rites in papal liturgies, but that my heritage is exhausted by innovations made in the 70's.

It might be tempting to think that I am simply asserting that the Tridentine ritual pertains to my "European" heritage the same way that indigenous exorcism rites pertain to native American culture. I am, in fact, asserting a more nuanced claim. In particular, the rites as they developed up until the Second Vatican Council pertain to the culture of he entire Church. This culture is diachronic (and, accordingly, I am here making a theological as well as a sociological argument). Even if the Tridentine Mass had its inception long before the evangelization of a given people, it still belongs to that people, nonetheless, since the accumulated heritage of the Church universal becomes their birthright upon their reception into communion. Accordingly, I claim any argument that can be made to enshrine the cultural riches of a particular culture in divine worship, can be generalized to assert the permanent dignity of the riches that belong to to the Church's universal culture.

¹There is no need for a specific citation here. Simply search for "latin Mass" in Google news and voila

Isabel Peron

For some reason I find myself irked by much of the coverage of the election of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The linked article, and even the omniscient Stephen Colbert, report that she will become Argentina's first female president.
While it is true that she will be the first elected female president, the honor of "first female president" goes to Isabel Peron, third wife of Juan Peron.

This fact was seared into my mind during a college bowl competition. I was the captain of USD's college bowl team, about to lead my team to victory against Stanford in a close match. With one minute left on the clock, the moderator began his question, "This woman, the first to be a head of state in the western hemisphere..." I tapped my buzzer and immediately answered "Isabella Peron". My heart sank as a three minute time-out was taken and the moderator consulted with "experts" to see if my having added an "a" to madam presidente's given name made the answer wrong. Fortunately they let it slide, and USD went on to victory. Go Toreros!

So I guess I feel like I am now the special custodian of this piece of trivia. No wonder, then, I should be annoyed by the media's oversight.