Matthew,
my son, and I took a weekend trip to Washington, D.C. together a few weeks ago for
our annual father and son “adventure” for Father’s Day.More on that in a different post, but for
Sunday Mass we decided to go to the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostlesince it was within walking distance of our hotel.I had not heard of St. Matthew the Apostle
Cathedral, and I’ve been to Washington many times.Of course I’ve never read a tourist book on
Washington either.Normally if you’re out
of town and want to go to a Catholic church in Washington, one goes to the
Basilica of the National Shrine.But it
is away from the National Mall, out in the Northeast of the city by Catholic
University.But St. Matthew’s is only
about a mile from the White House, and our hotel was right in between.The church was named after St. Matthew the
apostle and evangelist, and fittingly for Washington D.C. a former tax
collector.And of course my son wanted
to go to a church named after his patron saint.
Now
this particular building of St. Matthew’s goes back to 1895 (there was a predecessor
building from 1840) and had to be the primary Catholic Church for Washington well
into the 20th century.The
Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, was opened in 1959,
and you would have expected President John F. Kennedy to attend Mass at either
the Basilica or St. Matthew’s.While the
Basilica is out of the way and though you could find a picture of Kennedy at
St. Matthew’s, he was a parishioner at Holy Trinity Church in Georgetown, both
as Congressman, Senator, and President.The same goes for Joe Biden, the only other Catholic president.He attended Holy Trinity as a Senator and Vice-President,
and now attends as President.Despite
all that, St. Matthew’s was the church where President Kennedy’s funeral was
held.I’ll show a commemoration on that
later.
From
the outside, St. Matthew’s hardly looks like a Cathedral.It has
a rather plain Romanesque façade composed of red brick and red terracotta.
But
when you enter the church and look down the nave to the sanctuary, your breath
is taken away.
All
the color, the arches, the height of the columns, the cupola, it’s all
stunning.The sanctuary face has a
mosaic of St. Matthew with an angel.
Matthew
as a writer of a Gospel is holding a book.The information pamphlet says the book is opened to “Jesus saw a man
sitting in the custom house named Matthew and He said to him, ‘Follow Me.’And he arose and followed Him” (Mat 9:9).
Now
if you turn around and look at the narthex, you will find it just as beautiful.
And
if you zoom in on the painting at the top, you will find a mural titled “Saintly
and Eminent Personages of the Americas,”
At
the center is Archbishop John Carroll, the founder of Georgetown University,
the first bishop and archbishop appointed in the United States and cousin to
Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of
Independence.I won’t list everyone in
the painting, but among the eminent Catholics are Saints Katherine Drexel,
Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Neumann, Kateri Tekakwitha, and Philippine Duchesne,
the first American saints to be canonized.
The
cupola is absolutely stunning.
Leading
to the cupola are four column, each with a mosaic of one of the
Evangelists.If you know your
iconography associated with each, you can figure out that is St. Mark on the
lower left with the winged lion, St. Matthew on the lower right with the angel,
St. John on the upper right with the eagle, and St. Luke on the upper left with
the winged bull.
Around
the church there are many side chapels.I won’t have the space to present them all, but here are a few.First, to the left of the altar is the
Blessed Sacrament Chapel, which houses the tabernacle.
It
doesn’t say who the figures in the mosaic are, but I think it’s two of the
evangelists, Saints John and Matthew.To
the right of the altar is the Wedding Chapel, highlighted by the wooden carved statues
overlaid in gold depicting the wedding of Mary and Joseph.
There
is a Chapel of St. Francis of Assisi.
There
are more chapels as well, but I don’t have the space for them.I should show you the organ.It is impressive.
I
must show you a couple of the fourteen Stations of the Cross.These are reliefs with gold overlay.Station #3, Jesus falls for the first time.
And
#14, Jesus is placed in the tomb.
Finally
there is a commemoration to President John F. Kennedy’s funeral Mass.Typically at a funeral Mass the casket with
the deceased is brought up to the foot of the altar.Inlaid to the floor marble at that spot is a
commemorative plaque.
My son and I standing on that spot.
I
haven’t even mentioned the statues, the beautiful marble floor, the columns, ceiling,
and other amazing aspects to this church.You can take a virtual tour online where you can get the full impact of
the space and color that a camera just cannot capture.
Better
than a tour is to visit the church yourself.Once you’ve done the Mall monuments for the umpteenth time, take a side pilgrimage
to this lovely church, The Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle.You don’t have to be Catholic.
I’ve
been having a number of online discussions on the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade and thereby removing a
national imposition of a right to kill a child in the womb.Let me capture some of my various comments
and some of the back and forth with those that either agreed with me or were opposed.There were three Original Posts on the
subject, which I’ve placed in bold ahead of the comments for that post.By the way, these posts were from a
conservative forum I belong to, Ricochet.
Supreme
Court Overturns Roe V. Wade
My
Comment:
I was in tears when I
heard.I thought it would be
anti-climatic given the leak of a few weeks ago, but it wasn’t.I am still moved beyond words.And it came on the Feast of the Sacred Heart
of Jesus!This is so momentous in my
life that I had to write up my own post.
God bless everyone who
prayed or worked toward this day.It is
a joyous moment.
Someone’s
Comment:
Donald Trump deserves
massive praise for sticking with Kavanaugh. He deserves credit for the 3
justices that joined Alito and Thomas. Credit to the Justices for the decision.
Credit to McConnell for holding the seat.
If nothing else came of
the Trump presidency, this was worth it. It was worth all the drama, mean
tweets, silly statements, hand wringing, all of it. I’d pay 10x that to have
this outcome. Trump’s presidency was overall great policy-wise, but this will
be the central pillar of his legacy.
This is the biggest pro
life win since Roe. Now the battleground shifts to 51 smaller battles. Keep up
the good fight.
My
Reply:
Absolutely!This will be Donald Trump’s greatest
achievement.No wishy-washy RINO
appointments to the SCOTUS.He is such
an imperfect man but I believe that God worked through him to get us here.May God bless Donald Trump for this.
Another
Person’s Comment:
I am amazed that
pro-lifers almost never used one of their strongest arguments, that Roe v. Wade
was designed and has functioned to reduce the growth of the black population.
For sociocultural reasons
nobody understands, black women have abortions two or three times as often as
white women.
My
Reply:
They do use that
argument.It just doesn’t seem to
resonate beyond those who are pro-life.If you’re pro-abortion, you don’t care where it came from.
Third
person’s Comment:
Just out of curiosity,
has there been any analysis of how the final decision differs from the leaked
draft?
My
Reply:
I heard it was near
identical to the leaked version.If
there are substantive differences it will come out in the following days.
Fourth
Person’s Comment:
I fear more states using
this decision as a catalyst and liberalize their abortion laws to include late
term abortions. I’m unfortunately doubtful this decision will decrease the
amount of abortions. I sure hope I’m wrong.
My
Reply:
The stricter abortion
laws of the last few years in the GOP states has most certainly reduced the
number of abortions.You can find a
number of articles on it, here’s one with data.
Fifth
Person’s Comment in Reply to Another Comment:
That assumes Blacks and
Hispanics will remain perpetual wards of the Democrat Party. There has been
significant slippage by both groups. In South Texas the Hispanics seem to be
beginning the same type of political shift from Democrat to Republican that I
witnessed in then sapphire-blue East Texas in the 1990s. If so, the Republicans
benefit from banning abortion.
My
Reply:
I’ve said on a number of
occasions this is a center left country and has been at least since 2000.However, if the Hispanics can come over to
the right (say 40% Republican), then I think this country can be a center right
country again.I’m not willing to
compromise my principles, that wouldn’t be a center-right country, but we need
to focus on them to persuade them to come over.
Sixth
Person’s (from Ireland) Comment in Reply to Another:
That was the biggest lie
told in the run up to the repeal of the 8th amendment in Ireland. Even though
the wording explicitly stated this, the pro abortions persistently pushed this
lie that a woman would be denied life saving treatment if she was pregnant. So
many people fell for it, ones you’d never expect
My
Reply:
People need a moral cover
to implement and legalize sin. Then in time the sin “becomes” normal. That’s
when they get outraged that a“right”
will be taken away if ever challenged.
###
Why
Are Abortion Proponents So Emotional?
My
Comment:
Why?That is a good question, which I’ve pondered
way back when Bill Clinton was triangulating. He could compromise on just about
anything when Republicans had that revolutionary retake of Congress in 1994.
Even when he was being impeached they stuck by him as long as he was
pro-abortion. So why do they hold on to abortion to this level?The only thing I can conclude is that this is
a “religious” issue for them. It’s a matter of doctrine, dogma, and “religious”
devotion. It is the left’s “sacrament” and Satanic devotion.
I should add to this.
Abortion is the sacrament but the faith is in sexual freedom. Sexual freedom is
their spiritual connection with whatever they consider divine.It’s actually quite a pagan outlook.
It’s true. Paradoxically
the more contraceptives the more abortions. It only takes one screw up and
you’re pregnant. This is why Planned Parenthood is such a pusher if
contraceptives. You would think it would be working against their interests.
But it doesn’t. It’s sympathetic to their interest in that it builds a culture
of sexual promiscuity.
###
Comment:
This is so but men were
naturally made to rape and conquer foreigners. Nature sucks. We should try to
move beyond our filthy ape nature.
Reply:
If men stop raping and
conquering, civilization can still continue. Not so if women don’t have
children.
My
Reply:
And men weren’t made to
rape and conquer.That’s from his
perverse understanding of humanity.
Reply
to my reply:
We are pretty close to
chimps mate. It ain’t pretty but it’s True.
My
Retort:
You maybe, but not
me.
A
Different Person’s Reply to Me:
Religion has a refutation
and an explanation for science, but… science also has an explanation for
religion, and need not bother with refutation.That said, I agree that HC has mis-stated the case.
My
Reply:
Scientifically, the
difference between a chimp and a human is great.Just look around you.Can a chimp design a car and build one?Does a chimp live in a house?Does a chimp create a bourbon I’m now
sipping?Come on.You’ve bought into this pseudo science.
His
Reply:
I’m intrigued by chimp
bourbon.
My
Reply:
LOL. I’m not sure it’s
worth trying.
###
A
Missed Pro-Life Argument: Addressing Ambivalence
My
Comment:
I don’t know. There’s
always a mushy middle on every issue. Abortion strikes me as an issue where
there is a sharp and clear divide. It’s just a more emotional and polarizing
issue than others. And there’s very little room to compromise. You’re either
for it or against it. It should be made clear. The SCOTUS decision the other
day did not ban abortion. It returned the issue to where it rightly belongs,
the states.
A
Reply to Me:
Wrong.I, for one, am in the uncomfortable middle.
FWIW, here is the outline of my stance:
I am not religious, and I
don’t recognize moralizing arguments re abortion founded in any particular
religion. I also think the country is past the point where a religious based
argument will carry the day, it’s instead more likely to cause blowback.
Nonetheless, there needs
to be some recognizable combination of ethics and pragmatism, that is
reasonably likely to stand the test of time in the face of political, social
and technological change.
·I personally believe the cutoff date for
abortion without evidence of grave harm to the mother should be at the point of
higher brain function, which is what distinguishes a potential human from an
animal. (So I’m already outside the all-or-nothing set.)
·However, I don’t found my argument for a
public solution on that personal belief, instead I’m basing it on pragmatism,
specifically in what rationale is likely to survive technological and market
challenges.
·Current technology allows a fetus to be
taken to term outside the womb for almost the entire third trimester. Killing
it rather than extracting it in that case I find hard to distinguish from
murder. I think that’s an argument that will largely resonate for anyone who’s
not an absolutist for abortion to the point of birth.
·On the other hand, abortifacients, e.g.,
‘Plan B’ are readily available and that genie is not going back in the bottle.
Trying to outlaw abortions during the period when they are effective would lead
to an even more tragic drug war, with second order effects that would likely
include the creation of even more powerful and easily concealable abortion
doses. I think that’s also a reality that can be recognized by those who are
not religious absolutists against abortion of any kind.
·And finally, the whole issue arises
tragically because people literally f*** up.While there are accidents out there, the majority find themselves in a
morally compromised position due to incompetence or indifference. It’d be nice
if that could be an issue that both sides would cooperate to improve, but I’m
not holding my breath.
I will probably, as
usual, take incoming from both sides. C’est la vie.
My
Reply Back:
No you’re wrong.You are objectively killing a human being no
matter what stage in their life, whether it be one second after fertilization
or one trimester or at birth at at two years old or forty years old or 100
years old.That is the objective
criteria.To kill a human being is
morally unethical at any stage.If you
don’t want a moral criteria, then you’re a liberal, playing God at will with
life and death depending on your utility.
“I personally believe the
cutoff date for abortion without evidence of grave harm to the mother should be
at the point of higher brain function, which is what distinguishes a potential
human from an animal. (So I’m already outside the all-or-nothing set.)”
Ha!That’s like five years old.That is the liberal criteria, sentience.What you are arguing for is infanticide, just
like Pete Singer and the radical leftist “ethicists” and filtered down to
college students arguing to kill two year olds.
This is the perfect
example of why conservatism is not conservative unless it be linked to
Judeo-Christian morality.You can’t have
conservatism without God.
His
Reply:
Your actual statement of
position is what I referred to as religious absolutism, and is an example of
what I think will not only not win the day in public opinion, but will probably
have negative results.
My
Reply:
No, it’s not religious
absolutism.It’s scientific
absolutism.A human being is a human
being at any stage after fertilization.That’s the objective criteria.Everything else is arbitrary for convenience.
His
Reply:
A normal embryo has the
genetic endowment of a human being from the point of conception. It does not,
however, have the fully developed phenotype of a human being, a reasoning
mammal, which is when I would contend its rights begin to overwhelm any
consideration of the mother. That’s just as ‘scientific’ as your formulation.
My
Reply:
Neither does a one day
old.Neither does a person born mentally
challenged.Neither does a person who
has severe brain damage.This again is
the Liberal argument from sentience.
His
Reply:
No, it’s not. I’m saying
the cutoff is evidence of cerebral cortex function. Neural activity, no IQ
tests, no sanity checks. How about engaging with that argument instead of name
calling or putting words in my mouth. I’m told that’s more persuasive.
My
Reply:
I didn’t call you any
names. I’m not sure there is much of a distinction between sentience and brain
function ability. Even if granted the distinction, it’s still an in process of
development moment in time that considers a person not to be a person because
he is not fully developed. I don’t see that as any ethically different.
A
Different Person Replying:
Definitively.Evaluation of human worth and subsequent
killability is not a matter of individual estimation.Either it is human, and individual, and
living, or it is not.Once we start
saying that a human life is not old enough to be of worth, or thoughtful enough
to be of worth.Then all killing of
innocent life is reasonable.
A newly fertilized egg
will mature into if all goes well and according to nature’s plan a 70 or 80 or
90 or 100-year-old man or woman.We
don’t have the right to say one person is worth this existence and another is
not.
My
Reply to the Third Person:
Thank you. No argument
can sustain philosophic inconsistency. That’s why the Liberals changed their
criteria from “it’s not human” to sentience as to when to allow abortion. They
lost the argument that it’s not human.
By the way, the “it’s not
human” argument was the same argument used to justify slavery of blacks. It was
no longer sustainable once you had objective facts.
A
Fourth Person Replying to Me:
Actually, I believe there
are some variations that suggest a middle ground, albeit a middle ground that
would be totally unsatisfactory to anyone who believes that life begins at
conception.
For example, a majority
of Americans believe that abortion (at an early stage) is acceptable in cases
of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. Many also believe that
abortion is acceptable (at some point) when the baby will be born with down
syndrome or some other genetic deformity.
In my state, Ohio, for
example, the Republican legislature adopted a heartbeat bill, which suggests
that the states interest in protecting the baby’s life begins when the baby has
a heartbeat and thus could theoretically survive outside the mother. This is,
of course, a very early stage of pregnancy.
To me, these are middle
grounds that would be unacceptable to those whose beliefs inhabit the far ends
of the debate (like me), but they are middle grounds nevertheless.
My
Reply to the Fourth Person:
Well, there is political
power and political power will ultimately get its way.I have been arguing from the philosophic
merits of the issue.Each state will
find some balancing point to satisfy the most voters.But mind you, this is raw political power,
not philosophic consistency or more importantly ethical justification.It is the same raw political power that
determined people with black skin were not human beings and justified
enslavement or the same raw political power that determined in Nazi Germany
that six million people were not human enough to live.Raw political power, that is, might, does not
make right.And for certain there is no
nobility in it.
Let me tell you something
about the heartbeat criteria.I’ve been
close to the pro-life movement for at least ten years, probably more.When I was looking for some sort of
compromising criteria, I came up with the heartbeat.No where had I ever heard anyone propose it,
and for the longest time I still hadn’t.I thought I held the secret formula for compromise.Not that I published it anywhere, but since I
never heard anyone else bring it up I held it close to my heart.The first I heard anyone was a year to two
years ago when one of the states recently brought it up as a criteria.Perhaps it was Ohio.I thought, finally someone is bringing this
up, but by this time I had come to the realization that it is just as much a
human being before the heart starts beating as after.The normal human progress is under way, just
as any normal human progress, just as my body at 60 is heading toward
senescence. A human being is a human being at whatever stage it is at.It does not meet meet the ethical criteria.
Now that is not to say I
would not accept it.The heart starts
beating at six weeks or less.That’s
pretty early and is a firm criteria that an abortionist can be held to.If the most Liberal of the states would adopt
the heartbeat criteria I would be thrilled.I think I’ve mentioned this before.On abortion I feel like Schindler at the end of the movie, Schindler’s
List.How can I save one more.
My
Concluding Comment:
Any line that is drawn
will be purely arbitrary, except perhaps the heartbeat line as David mentioned
above.Some would like to pick a spot
where the child has not developed pain yet.That can’t be done.There is no
way to know that, and it’s actually an admittance of the cruelty of what is
done during an abortion.The heartbeat
is a clear marker that you can measure and is a sort of incomplete science
where one can claim that life begins there.That’s why I was so hot on it for a number of years.But it’s incomplete because one has to put
blinders on as to what is happening beforehand.
By the way, I don’t think
I have ever brought up religion in this argument.I have brought up human ethics.It’s the pro-aborts who always claim
pro-lifers are motivated by religion.Perhaps there is an intertwining of ethics, religion, and pro-life, but
I have not made any argument from a religious point of view.Perhaps there is no human ethics if one does
not believe in religion.Dostoyevsky
seemed to think so: “Without God all things are permitted.”
Who
was Phyllis Wheatley?She was an
African-American who was a slave but taught to read and write and showed a
natural gift toward poetry.According to
Wikipedia, she was born in West Africa, enslaved at about seven or eight, brought to the colonies
where she was sold to the Wheatley family in Boston.This was quite fortunate (not the
enslavement, but being sold to the Wheatley family) in that she was taught to
read and write, and once showing talent in poetry was encouraged.Phyllis Wheatley was the first African-American
to publish a book, titled, Poems on
Various Subjects.Her masters even
took her to London, which must have been a great experience for her.
PoetryFoundation also has a fuller biography (read this one if you’re only going to read one) and a brief analysis of her
poetic style.
Poems
on Various Subjects revealed that Wheatley’s favorite poetic
form was the couplet, both iambic pentameter and heroic. More than one-third of
her canon is composed of elegies, poems on the deaths of noted persons,
friends, or even strangers whose loved ones employed the poet. The poems that
best demonstrate her abilities and are most often questioned by detractors are
those that employ classical themes as well as techniques.
Upon
publication of her book, she was freed and went on to live a difficult and
relatively short life.But her life did
overlap the beginning of the Revolutionary War and she wrote this one poem in
praise of George Washington, the Commanding General of the Continental Army.I think it’s worth reading today on the
Fourth of July, 2022.This poem fits
right into Poetry Foundation’s
analysis.
His
Excellency General Washington
Phillis Wheatley (1753-1784)
Celestial choir! enthron'd in realms of
light,
Columbia's scenes of
glorious toils I write.
While freedom's cause her
anxious breast alarms,
She flashes dreadful in
refulgent arms.
See mother earth her
offspring's fate bemoan,
And nations gaze at
scenes before unknown!
See the bright beams of
heaven's revolving light
Involved in sorrows and
the veil of night!
The Goddess comes, she moves divinely fair,
Olive and laurel binds
Her golden hair:
Wherever shines this
native of the skies,
Unnumber'd charms and
recent graces rise.
Muse! Bow propitious while my pen relates
How pour her armies
through a thousand gates,
As when Eolus heaven's
fair face deforms,
Enwrapp'd in tempest and
a night of storms;
Astonish'd ocean feels
the wild uproar,
The refluent surges beat
the sounding shore;
Or think as leaves in
Autumn's golden reign,
Such, and so many, moves
the warrior's train.
In bright array they seek
the work of war,
Where high unfurl'd the
ensign waves in air.
Shall I to Washington
their praise recite?
Enough thou know'st them
in the fields of fight.
Thee, first in peace and
honors—we demand
The grace and glory of
thy martial band.
Fam'd for thy valour, for
thy virtues more,
Hear every tongue thy
guardian aid implore!
One century scarce perform'd its destined
round,
When Gallic powers
Columbia's fury found;
And so may you, whoever
dares disgrace
The land of freedom's
heaven-defended race!
Fix'd are the eyes of
nations on the scales,
For in their hopes
Columbia's arm prevails.
Anon Britannia droops the
pensive head,
While round increase the
rising hills of dead.
Ah! Cruel blindness to
Columbia's state!
Lament thy thirst of
boundless power too late.
Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy
side,
Thy ev'ry action let the
Goddess guide.
A crown, a mansion, and a
throne that shine,
With gold unfading,
WASHINGTON! Be thine.
You
can hear the poem read if you prefer here.
I’m
not a fan of 18th century poetry but this is as good as most of that
era.Though educated, I can’t imagine
she was sent to prominent teachers and had a disciplined education.She probably read a lot on her own and was self-taught.She seems like a wonderful woman.If I had the time I would love to read more
about her.She needs to be better remembered.God bless her.
I have in the past found today’s Gospel
passage strange.Jesus sends his
disciples out in pairs, defenseless, and like sheep among wolves.This is not the entire Gospel reading, just
what seems strange.
Go on your way;
behold, I am sending you
like lambs among wolves.
Carry no money bag, no
sack, no sandals;
and greet no one along the
way.
Into whatever house you
enter, first say,
'Peace to this household.'
If a peaceful person lives
there,
your peace will rest on
him;
but if not, it will return
to you.
Stay in the same house and
eat and drink what is offered to you,
.JPG)
.JPG)
