“This week I’m traveling to the U.S.-EU summit in Ireland, homeland to so many Irish Americans” — President George W. Bush, Presidential Radio Address of Saturday, June 26, 2004.
Newsflash to all you Irish-Americans out there, Ireland is your homeland.
I haven’t been all that political on this blog since it’s inception; however, I might as well join the bandwagon every so often.
“War on terror”. I dislike this expression. Sure, this works well in grand-arcing addresses, like the State of the Union. In the context of our daily lives, however, I simply do not like the use of it. I’m fighting a “war on procrastination” and so you, the “enemies of productiveness”, no longer will be allowed such to roam so freely. Sure, I’m making light of a serious issue, terrorism; however, the pure linguistics of it are horrid. I’m not studying English or communications or public policy. That being said, it’s just bad English. We are not fighting a war on terrorism just as we are not fighting a war on crime. We are attempting to limit the abilities of terrorists. We are attempting to overcome whatever elements of crime that we are able. We say that we are trying to end terrorism. I hate to be this blunt but that is an impossible goal. This is not us aiming high; this is us aiming beyond reach. All of the fighting in the “war on terrorism” would never have prevented an Oklahoma City. The worst act of terrorism on American soil, excluding September 11, would never have been prevented by anything the post-September 11 efforts have fruited. In short, we will never be able to “defeat” terrorism.
We are the last superpower in the world. We are the most powerful nation. We have the most resources. We have the highest potential. That makes us, for as long as we hold the top spot, the target of terrorism. We should defend ourselves against it. We can not defeat it like we defeated Nazi Germany. We can not defeat it like we defeated English in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. Save the dogs, and talk, of war for something that is a war.
The use of military? I’m not getting into that. The use of the terror alert system? I’m not getting into that. War is a simple way to express the complex present solution to the threat of organized terrorism. Simply put, stop treating us like we’re third graders that need to be spoken to like we can’t understand that the world is a complex place where simple solutions simply do not exist.

The differences in the translation starts right at the beginning with the Introductory Rites.
Latin: 2. Deinde sacerdos, manus extendens, populum salutat, dicens:
ICEL 2004: 2. Then, extending his hands, the priest greets the people, singing or saying:
ICEL 1973: Then the priest, facing the people, extends his hands and greets all present with one of the following greetings:
USCCB 1966: [no similar passage]
Commentary: Not much to say here except notice that the instruction to face the people have been removed. That indicates that the ‘standard’ method of saying Mass is facing the people. The 1973 translation gave instructions to the priest on when to face the people, if he was celebrating Mass facing the altar. A shift away from the days of old?
Latin: Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi, et caritas Dei, et communicatio Sancti Spiritus sit cum omnibus vobis.
ICEL 2004: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
ICEL 1973: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
USCCB 1966: [no similar passage]
Commentary: The difference between “fellowship” and “communion” is a sharp one. Fellowship implies friendship, companionship or simply being together. We gather together in community in fellowship. We do not seek simply fellowship with our God. Communion says sharing, something more intimate than fellowship. Communion better communicates the intimate nature of God and man. The Holy Spirit was conceived in the womb of a mortal woman to form God incarnate. That type of union is much stronger than fellowship.
Latin: Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo.
ICEL 2004: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
ICEL 1973: The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
USCCB 1966: [no similar passage]
Commentary: In this case, I’m simply not sure of the difference. Checking both typica Latin versions, they are the same in the mother language. After re-reading it many times, perhaps the difference falls in what the nature of grace and peace. Can grace “be with you” or do you receive grace? The peace of Christ remains with us but is it the same with grace? I don’t know but I would venture with what I know there is some difference. We speak of grace as something we receive.The way we speak of ‘peace’ is different. Peace from God and peace of God? Any ideas of the difference?
Latin: Et cum spiritu tuo
ICEL 2004: And with your spirit.
ICEL 1973: And also with you.
USCCB 1966: And with your spirit.*
*- The 1966 edition does not have “Et cum spiritu tuo/And with your spirit” in this place; however, as it is a common piece of dialogue, it does appear later.
Commentary: Times like this is when it is obvious to me that I know nothing regarding liturgy and liturgical language. The difference between wishing a person something and wishing their spirit something is meaningful. How? I don’t know.

Continue Reading…

Politicians tell men to have more sex
link via Dappled Things

Root Beer Best for Teeth

Priest Beats Up Would-Be Robber
Found this story via the Shine of the Holy Whapping.