So, why are we using the New American Bible, anyway?

I walked into the local Catholic bookstore yesterday, and was asked by the proprietor what to expect when the corrected translation is put into full-scale use next Advent.  "Someone said the Scripture readings would be different."  "Unfortunately," said I, "we are stuck with the New American Bible."

Unless we are using the Vulgate or the Duoay-Rheims (I'd even say the KJV, but that is decidedly anti-Catholic, so that won't do either), each modern translation has its ups and downs.  More literal texts, like the Revised Standard (or Duoay-Rheims), in their attempts at maintaining integrity to the original, have sequences that are hard to follow, and thus turn people off.  More dynamic texts, the the Good News, or the Word, take liberties with the original in an effort to make the text sound "fresh" and "relevent".  In these texts, it is hard to seriously determine what the Sacred Authors said, and much is actually the translators' interpretations (not necessarily what the Holy Spirit intended the human authors to record).  In addition, many contemporary versions have kowtowed to feminazis and communists by gender-neutralizing language and dumbing-down certain sections that deal with sexual morality.  The NAB fits in here. 

Now, certainly, the NAB has its qualities.  Often it reads smoothly, and when compared to other versions, you can tell the translators tried to keep with the original over "improving" what the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write.  However, in terms of sexual morality, the NAB gets a big, fat "F".  For starters, it has completely and totally removed the term "fornication", common in all translations prior to the 1960s, which means pre-marital sexual activity.  Now, one could substitute "pre-maritial sexual activity" for "fornication", but not for "enlightened" translators after the 1960s!  No, such prudish ideas must be purged from our out-moded mindset.  Nevermind that the originals still include fornication, or never mind that the Vulgate still includes fornication. 

That is one major failing of the NAB.  Another major failing is the translations of the Psalms.  Using the Grail Psalmody for the Liturgy of the Hours is so marvelous!  You can actually feel the emotion behind the psalmists words, and that helps you pray them.  You can't really do that with the NAB.

But there is another, more compelling reason to abandon the NAB completely: its editors contradict defined Catholic teaching in more than a few places and undermine the Bible as the Word of God.  One glaring example is in the Genesis account of the Great Deluge.  Unlike other translations, which offer study points and clarifications in "Study Bible" versions, every single NAB I have ever seen has the same exact footnotes for the same exact verses.  Here is what the footnote says about the Deluge: "Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the Gilgamesh epic.    The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it." 

So, according to the Know-it-alls who translated the NAB, the Flood never really happened, but the writers of Genesis heard about it from the Gilgamesh epic and thought it cool, so they included it.  Just like the account of the Tower of Babel.  Of that account, the editors opine, "This story, based on traditions about the temple towers, or ziggurats, or Babylonia...".  This account, too, is not based on, you know, the Inspiration of the Third Person of the Godhead, but on some stories about Babylonia. 

What is assumed here is assumed in the New Testament when these note-makers refer to "Q" and other such nonsense: rather than use the text as it is as a reference point, we make up reference points with which to compare the Bible.  No longer do we say "Wow!  The Gilgamesh epic mentions a flood, just like the Bible.  A flood must have happened, then!"  Now we say, "Early Mesopotamian extant literary forms, of which the Gilgamesh epic is predominant, include a reference to a mythological 'flood'.  The authors of the stories in Genesis obviously used that tale to give credibility to their own mythologies."  This sort of thinking is to be expected from secular humanists like Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams.  But from EDITORS OF BIBLES?!?! 

It is true that Fathers like Augustine have quite clearly warned us that not everything in Genesis is to be taken to have happened exactly the way it is written.  Clearly, the order of the Creation seems to show something of a thematic as opposed to chronological element to it.  But that doesn't mean we automatically assume that these accounts are simply mythological stories that sound cute.  Could it possibly be that the flood actually did happen (and the Gilgamesh epic recorded Mesopotamia's take on it)?  Could it possibly be that the Tower of Babel account isn't drawn from the ziggurats, but the ziggurats are a left-over from that ill-fated attempt?  Why is the default setting that the Bible is wrong?

"It's your brain. You need that a lot."

The quote is from Cleveland Browns center Alex Mack, in reference to Steelers linebacker James Harrison's style of play.  Sure, as Mr. Mack points out "You need that alot", but the question is, do people really use it?  The answer of course, is "no".

1)  The Sun-Gazette (our local newspaper) recently ran a front-page article on hydraulic fracturing in the natural gas industry, repeating the same old canard: fracturing pollutes the water supply, and those horrible, evil chemicals are just going to destroy humanity.  Firstly, the article states that " industry assertions that no groundwater contamination has ever occurred during the fracking process refers only 'to just what happens a mile or two under the ground.'"  This is an asanine claim because the individual isn't using his brain (do progressives ever use their brains?).  The only time fracturing fluids would ever contaminate groundwater is through massive spillage and direct access to the water table.  While there have been spills, according to the DEP, a great majority of those spills haven't leached into the water supply because those spills have either been contained or cleaned up prior to seapage into the ground.  At any rate, to substantially contaminate the water supply as has been claimed (to be clear, any contamination is bad, but these people are claiming whole-scale contamination, not that which results from occasional spills that don't make it to rivers and streams).

As for infecting the water supply in the water table...there is a reason why fracturing is needed in shale formations.  For one, the well itself is completely impermeable to outside fluids (be they gas or liquid) because the well is comprised of solid metal casing encased in a thick (4-6") layer of cement to support the casing.  This creates a situation where any fluid is not able to enter or exit the well-bore.  Thus, each frac begins with a perf stage, in which an explosive charge is detonated in a meticulously planned location to perforate the casing, the cement, and the formation. Then, the frac begins, as water and hydrochloric acid (found in your stomach) are pumped down the well-bore at extremely high pressures (avg 7000psi in the Marcellus formation, higher in other places) to extend the perfs in the formation.  If the resulting fractures were left un-propped after the water leaves, the fracture would close; to prevent this, premeable substances (called proppants), like sand, bauxite, and man-made items like ceramic-coated sand, are pumped down-hole at carefully designed rates (arrived at using meticulously studied geological information) to prop the fracture open.  Only after the fracturing process are the fluids that are trapped in the formation going to reach the surface.  Because the fractures themselves are a good mile or so from the water table, and the formation is impermeable, those fluids are never going to reach the water table (if they did, there'd be no need to drill, because the natrual gas would be leaching into the water supply on its own, without the help of the natural gas industry).  The only other way that frac fluids would enter the water supply is through a poorly constructed casing or a poor cement job.  If this were the case, then the water from the water table would enter into the well-bore prior to the frac job even starting.  The company overseeing the drilling and completion would recognize this problem, and take corrective action prior to fraccing, because such a problem could destroy the whole well.  Thus, it is quite impossible for frac fluids to enter the water table, whatever the nay-sayers say.

Detractors hold that since the common use of hydraulic fracturing, methane in well water supplies has become more common.  This is a disengenuous statement.  The hydraulic fracturing process was first put into widespread use in the '50s.  So what these guys are saying is that since 1950, we have seen ghastly amounts of well-water with methane, as a direct result of frac jobs.  The problem is, no one really checks water supplies until after frac operations have started or have finished.  Methane gas is naturally occuring in coal seams, not shale formations (again, see above concerning the permeability of shale).  Coal is more permeable than shale (being softer), and thus, the methane will seap into the water supply on its own, without the help of fraccing.  However, this is major problem with the claim: has the well-water been test prior to drilling operations, or has the enviromentalist hype surrounding fracturing so wound people as to blind them to objective information?  I vote for the latter.

This brings up the second issue with fracturing: the "mysterious" and deadly chemicals that no one knows about because Big Oil doesn't want anyone to know they are destroying the world one well at a time.  The same article says this: "The state Department of Environmental Protection recently released on its website a list of chemicals used industry-wide in the process. Range Resources became the first gas exploration company to divulge the chemicals it uses."  This is a bunch of balloney, pure and simple.  First, the DEP has had the list up for over a year.  Second, as required by federal Right to Know legislation, each and every chemical that is used by any institution has to be listed (including cleaning agents, soaps, and the like), and a Material Safety Data Sheet must be easily accessible for the public, OSHA, and employees.  Not only must it be easily accessible, but it must be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS when you walk into the offices of the facility.  MSDS binders are bright yellow, and there is usually a sign above them that says "Right to Know" information.  Even chemicals that are not hazardous require MSDS.  All one needs to do is to contact the fracturing company and ask for a list of the chemicals they use...by law, they have to give them the list.  In this regard, fracturing companies are no more mysterious than schools, factories or even government buildings are.  It is just the environmentalists creating false negative hype.  Of course, there is the issue of the health hazards from the chemicals.  Every company is different, so the lists of chemicals in use will vary.  Some will use peanut oil when possible, but others will opt for diesel fuel (which is decidedly more hazardous than peanut oil). 

Of course, I don't expect people actually concerned about the environment to get the whole story.  That would mean that facts and reason would trump emotion.  And every one knows that George W Bush and Dick Cheney had ties to Halliburton and the rest of Big Oil.  That means that everything about Big Oil is evil, because, you know, Bush and Cheney were utterly evil (at least, that is what Barack Obama and the Democrats say, as well as the New York Times, so seeing as the current President would never lie to get votes--whereas his predecessor did nothing but lie and cover up all he did--we have to trust him, right?)

Reading is fundemental

When we started this whole homeschooling thing, it was with not a little trepidation.  Maura was at the top of her class while in school, (not hard for Pre-K3 when she's four), and if she'd gone back to school, she'd be in Pre-K4 because we didn't want her to be developmentally behind when she got to be in the upper grades, which is the predominant situation in moving kids ahead.  So, our plan with homeschooling was to start her out in Pre-K material...but when we got it, Maura had already mastered it all.  So we decided to move on to Kindergarten stuff. 

For the past three weeks, Maura and mom have been working on blending sounds.  Last week, Maura showed me a book she made and she read it to me.  It was simple, two-three word sentences, but still.  She did another one on Monday, and is super excited.  She's supposed to do one a week, as recommended by the curriculum; however, she's so into it, that she'd like to do one a day.  At this rate, she'll finish the Kindergarten curriculum by Christmas, and will be ready for first grade material.  On the otherhand, she's rather bored with piano.

Nolan is, well, Nolan.  He likes learning, just not sitting still.  On Monday, I walked into the school room to find Nolan walking on the window sill.  The nonchalantness of his demeanor and the ease of his getting down told me that this is not an uncommon occurrance (indeed Christina told me he does it almost everyday).  However, give him a book of mazes and puzzles, and he will sit for over an hour...he loves figuring them out.  He also loves playing piano, and Christina tells me he is her best student (which is true because they both played a small piece, and he breezed through it).

They grow up so fast

This morning, before work, Christina gave me Kid 3 to hold while she got some bags from the van.  Being busy myself, I put the 9mo. rug-rat on the ground, and within seconds, she was on the fourth step, showing no signs of stopping...with a bug huge smile on her face.  She just started crawling about three weeks ago, and now she's on her way upstairs. 
She's gonna be trouble...with a big huge smile on her face the whole time.

The wisdom of my wife

Here is Central PA, we are in the midst of a natural gas boom. Wells are being drilled at a dizzying pace, and it seems that everywhere you turn you see a service truck with TX license plates. Of course there are supporters and detractors from the effort.

The detractors are essentially in three camps: the politicians from non-Marcellus Shale regions camp, the "Texans took my job" camp, and the environmental/health-nazi camp. The funny thing is that these detractors all repeat the same canards over and over over.

My wife has an affinity for the environment, but unlike some people, she is at least reasonable. The latest nugget from my wife on environmentalists who want to throw us back into the stone age: "Natural gas is clean burning, efficient, and found in the US. Why not drill for it? Someone's landscape is going to have to suffer to get it, so these guys are hypocrits. They whine and complain about OUR environment, but couldn't care less about Texas or West Virgnia. If natural gas is so clean, these people should be supporting it!"

Eminem ain't too bright

Just read this:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100803.html

So, Marshall Mathers won't swear in front of his kids, and regards the use of certain words as degrading to the human person ("How would I sound as a person..."). Yet, he counts his profanity as part of his "art form".

Please. He must really think his daughters aren't that birght if he thinks that him not swearing at home will impact them more than his superfluous language as Eminem. Then, he blames parents for allowing kids to immitate the language he uses in his "songs". What???

So, let me see. He swears with no inhibition on his albums, and then blames the parents for his listeners mimicking what they hear? Sounds like those brilliant idiots who hand out condoms to teenagers and then blame the parents for teenage pregnancy, or those politicians who claim, like our fearless president and his cabinet (not to mention "Sr." Keehan) that federal funding of abortion will not increase the number of babies killed per year.

Yep, our public schools are working well.

Liturgical Progress

Huge Breakthrough:

Father Bechtel recognizes that versus populum celebration is an inovation and not traditional nor historical. Go figure.

Now, if we could get the liturgical-dance-nazis in the Chancery to see that, we'd be getting somewhere.

Its amazing what the Truth will do...

Just finished reading this:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345026?eng=y

So lets recount what has happened in the ecumenical sphere since April of 2005.

In Regensburg, Pope Benedict, in a speech on faith and reason, mentions the irrationality of Islam's history of forced conversions.  There is much anger and bile thrown his way...and then 142 Muslim scholars write a letter to the Holy Father seeking dialogue.  When the dialogue begins, the Holy Father is clear that it will only focus on religious liberty, and the concept of human rights (a clear slap in the face for Muslim belief that non-Muslims are to be persecuted and for the Muslim treatment of women)...talks begin.

Sept 14, 2007--The Holy Father issues Summorum pontificum, which allows for a relative freedom to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum.  Of course, liberal Catholics throw a hissy, and claim that it impedes ecumenical "progress".  The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Moscow lauded the move.  Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople even presided at a Vespers service.

The Holy Father then removed the excommunications that were levied on four bishops that were illicitly ordained by Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre in 1980 (this was hijacked by the moronic statements of perpetual malcontent, His Excellency Richard Williamson...just because you are elected to succeed the apostles doesn't mean you are graced with intelligence).  He was lambasted by the media, but...doctrinal talks between the Holy See and the SSPX began in earnest (where there had been none before). [NOTE: the SSPX, or Society of St. Pius X was begun in response to the implementaions of the Second Vatican Council, which were in contrast--at least to members of the Society.  The Society retained the older form of the Sacraments and rejected some of the documents of the Council, but not the authority of the Holy Father.  The commencement of doctrinal talks to lift the suspension of faculties by Society priests is a huge step forward for Christian Unity].

When the Anglican Communion debated itself in circles, and finally agreed that female bishop and openly gay priests were within the whole of Christian tradition, the Vatican called a spade a spade, and denounced the "decision".  Then, he goes ahead and issues Anglicanorum ceotibus, which creates a means for entire parishes of Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church (in response to a large contingent of Traditional Anglicans in the vein of the Oxford Movement).

A couple of weeks ago, the Holy Father went to England, and at the joint prayer service at Westminster Abbey, he wore a stole of Leo XIII, the pope who declared all orders of the Anglicans to be utterly null and invalid, and thusly received John Henry Newman into the Catholic Church.  Indeed, that entire visit was one of a reminder that he is the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ.  The result?  Huge crowds (considering that the UK is hugely secular) and a large contingent of Anglicans who have verbally stated they want to convert to Catholicism.

In the article mentioned above, we learn that the Orthodox were a bit put off by Benedict's dropping of the title Patriarch of the West (inferring that somehow, the office of the papacy is above the Patriarchs), and yet they continue to develop and discuss the theology and historicity of Petrine supremacy. 

My point?  Rather than take a concession, or state that we're all the same, which has been done for the last 40 years, this Holy Father tells it like it is...and the result is fruitful ecumenism.  Gee, whoda thunk telling the Truth would yield fruitful results?

Texas is different

At 5:00am this morning our new boss, fresh from Texas, stopped by the yard on his way to the well we are fraccing.  While waiting for mechanics to arrive to fix his broken headlight, he and I start talking about stuff. 

A few topics that were broached: the incompetence of PA's governor, the incompetence of our President, his former chief of staff (who now has no place to live), and the vice president, and the ridiculousness of state and local income taxes (which he argues are the result of corrupt unions bargaining with equally corrupt Democratic politicians).

I like this guy.

Family update

Colleen is getting cuter every day, and has been crawling for the last two-three weeks.  She is still sociable and full of smiles.  We started her on baby food.  No likey.  Then, on a whim we gave her Cheerios.  Mucho likey.  After about a week, she's getting really good at eating them.  So, next we tried fruits, bananas and apples.  Not so much.  Then, we gave her some thawed mixed vegetables...she likes them almost as much as Cheerios.  This leaves us with a rather substantial amount of baby-food bananas in our pantry.  The debate is whether we hold on to them for later, or Christina and I eat them...I'm arguing for eating them.  Baby-food bananas are like desert.

Maura's dance lessons appear to be going well.  It appears that interestingly enough, she really, really wants to dance (you know, because that what all Princesses do), so she listens to everything the teacher says and then tries to get the rest of the class to listen.  I just wish she'd listen to us that well at home.  Maura has been doing pre-1st grade work in school, and if she keeps going at this pace, she'll be doing 1st grade work by the end of the calendar year.  She's doing blending, and has recognized words like "hit" and "mat" while looking at books.  She is also learning about money and time.

Nolan is showing us how smart he is.  It is really, really hard to get my head around the fact that he is only 3 years old.  Sometimes, he acts like he's older than Maura (who acts older than her age would indicate).    His imagination and inquisitiveness are amazing.  He loves to learn, and if he could just sit still, he'd be doing Maura's work in school.  The kid has working vocabulary of a 5-6 year old, and when compared with other 3 year-olds, you'd think he's 4 or 5.  This makes it hard when trying to discipline him: when he acts so much like his older sister, you try to reason with him, but its like talking to wall.  Perhaps that is why he still runs along the back of the couch, in spite of our constant pleas to the contrary.