Check this out...

Please look at this amazing film. It shows you the power truth can have upon the soul. We just pray this order comes into full communion with Rome one day. Please God. Enjoy...

Can you believe it?!

This goes to show you where we have gone as a society! Just look at how commercial advertising encourages animal abuse in CHILDREN! Have we no shame? Have we lost all respect for these poor, helpless, innocent animals made by God? Who knows what one can hope to see next! I must ask, why has the APSCA done nothing to stop this? How can such people not want to intervene when such outrages on poor animals are committed! What hypocrites! Is there no decency in the world? Are we nearing the end? Has Britney Spears gone mad? Will her hair ever be the same again? AHHH!!!!
(lol) No, I'm not crazy, nor am I a radical animal rights fanatic, rest assured. I actually found this picture today and thought it was adorable. It made me smile and I hope does for you too. And don't mind my silly humor, it's part of my pre-spring fever ;-) Speaking of which, only 6 more days until the vernal equinox.. Yahhh! I can't wait!! Well ciao amicos, sta bene!

Into the Woods

Into the woods we must begin,
To take the time to walk within;
To ponder over leaves and streams,
And think of all those longed for dreams.

Give self a chance to stop and see,
The world around which lives for thee.
The sky above with purest blue
And earth below all lush and new.

Though time is short we're still alive
To take the chance to love and thrive.
So stop and stroll along that way
Where your heart longs to rest and pray.

Into the woods you must now go
To seek that place where you can grow.
Be thou content seek out that place
Into the woods, God waits with grace.

~This is for those of us who need stop and listen to our souls cry to retire from the routines of our lives. I pray it reminds us all to not ignore the urges we feel to go into the woods of our souls and rest a while. God calls us- let's not keep Him waiting.
A blessed Lent to you all.

Anne Marie

Reinterpreting Alighieri’s Theory of Interpretation

In Dante Aligheiri’s Il Convivio he posits the existence of four levels of exposition to any given piece of literature. These four levels or “senses” (249) include the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the anagogical, respectively. He explains that within a text, the literal refers to its apparent meaning, the allegorical to a text’s hidden or veiled reality, the moral to the principle it teaches, and the anagogical to that which relates “beyond the senses” (250) or a text’s spiritual message. Furthermore, he states that “the explication of the literal sense is the foundation of the others, especially the allegorical” (250). He asserts “the literal should always come first, as being the sense in whose meaning the others are enclosed and without which it would be impossible and illogical to attend to the other senses” (250). Although Alighieri’s theory is appropriate to many polysemous works, it does not apply universally to all forms of literature. Furthermore, his belief that literature comprises four levels of meaning is presumptuous. To prove this point, one can take a secular poem and apply his theory to show how it does not follow his logic. For example, looking at William Blake’s “My Pretty Rose Tree,” one can see how certain poetical texts do not comply with Alighieri’s theory, either because the literal does not lead to the allegorical meaning, or because the text does not contain four “senses” within it. Thus, good literary analysis is not contingent upon Alighieri’s theory, though he contends otherwise.

William Blake’s poem “My Pretty Rose Tree,” clearly illustrates the inaccuracy of Alighieri’s conviction that the literal sense must be conceived before the allegorical can be conceived . While it is correct to say one should understand the literal sense, it is not correct to say it must be understood or that it is the foundation for every level of interpretation. Blake’s text proves this point. For example, the idea of a rose tree being jealous or turning away from a person is not something one can understand literally. Why and how would a rose tree turn away from someone? What could this mean literally? One does not know from a literal understanding. Contrary to Alighieri’s theory, Blake leaves the reader with a semi-ambiguous understanding of the literal meaning in order to move them to think on an allegorical level and thus allow them to comprehend the text’s meaning. In other words, by encouraging the reader to seek the allegorical sense, the poem’s literal, moral or anagogical senses become more apparent. To apply this idea, think allegorically of what is happening to this man in the poem. Envision this man meeting a fair damsel whom he greatly desires, yet refuses because he is faithful to his cruel though beautiful wife. And his wife, knowing of this other woman, becomes jealous and treats him all the worse for it. Returning again to the literal sense, one can say a man is given the chance to possess a very rare and precious flower which he denies because he has a rose tree which he is devoted to although it pricks him with its thorns. Note how there is no resolution given to the jealous tree quandary. This is because the reader does not have to understand the literal meaning of this poem. It is there to move the reader into the allegorical sense where they can then understand the author’s intent of the poem. From this, Blake shows how Alighieri’s literal theory of interpretation is incorrect. The literal meaning is not the foundation from which one understands the text’s meaning, nor is it necessary that the literal sense be always comprehensive.

The second point to argue against Alighieri is his idea that all works contain four areas of exposition. Here, again, Blake shows otherwise. This poem does not contain all four meanings within it. It has a semi-literal, an allegorical and a moral sense, but not an anagogical. The literal and allegorical meanings have already been discussed. Morally, one could conceive a message relating to the importance of being prudent before choosing who it is one commits their life to, or that beauty is not everything, or how difficult life becomes once vowed in marriage. However, on an anagogical level, there is nothing to be inferred. One cannot say this relates to a supernatural truth or spiritual mystery. There are no divine meanings relative to the point of the poem nor should there have to be. It is not necessary for there to be an analogical meaning to make the poem more meaningful or more complete. In secular texts, the anagogical sense is not as necessary as it is in sacred texts. Scripture for example, does comprise all four levels of meaning, and does follow the Alighieri’s theory, but to say all texts have to is incorrect.

Although Alighieri provides analysts with a valid theory of interpretation for select works, one cannot assume his theory is the only one worth following or that it is free from error. It limits its approach in how one can interpret a text by restricting its basis to the literal meaning, and for this reason, it cannot be called a universal theory. While Alighieri’s theory of interpretation works well for specific types of texts, like scriptural, it’s wrong to say it works for every form of written literature. Some works are written differently, like Blake’s, which require different approaches and therefore cannot be treated the same as others. Alighieri assumes all forms of literature are the same, needing only one means of analysis, though this is clearly not the case, and hence, his interpretation of interpretation must be reassessed.

"My Pretty Rose Tree"

A flower was offered to me,
Such a flower as May never bore;
But I said "I've a pretty rose tree,"
And I passed the sweet flower o'er.

Then I went to my pretty rose tree,
To tend her by day and by night;
But my rose turned away with jealousy,
And her thorns were my only delight.

`William Blake

Me and My Millie

The Elucidation of Plato’s Allegory

In the “Allegory of the Cave” Plato makes the argument that ordinary men are blind to the existence of higher realities. He states common men are like chained “cavernous” (64) people, who can perceive only “shadows of artefacts”(65) on the wall of their provincial world. To become aware of what a thing truly is, or to belong to the world of truth, Plato believes it behooves man to break away from the conventional thoughts and perceptions of the average person; for man is unaware of his own ignorance until he seeks to break free from the shackles of widely assumed ideas of reality. The intellectual eye, once it enters into the world of truth through reason, will see with great clarity things in the perfect sense and ponder how he formerly existed without this truth. Plato warns, however, that man will only continue in this state if he remains outside of conventional society. To go back is to give up one’s self-dignity. Anyone who has seen truth and reverts to his former life of ignorance is only worthy of ridicule and pity. The argument Plato presents then is to reject representations of reality so as to find truth through one’s own reason and a personal pursuit of the divine realities.
The significance of Plato’s allegory of the cave for literary scholars is truly vast. Plato brought up an argument that made the literary and philosophical world think long and hard about the idea of man’s ability to find truth and asked whether literature inhibits that process or whether it assists it. Take, for example, the text which discusses the shadows of objects upon the wall in the cave and the people who see them. “[T]he shadows of artefacts would constitute the only reality people in this situation would recognize. […S]omeone tells him that what he’s been seeing all this time has no substance, and that he’s now [after leaving the cave] closer to reality and is seeing more accurately, because of the greater reality of the things before his eyes” (65). Plato makes the point that what man sees through representation is empty, meaningless. Man, therefore, must deny his own previous understanding of things if he wishes to come closer to possessing truth and to recognizing divine realities. Reason must be the way towards the divine, not representation, or literature. Literature is among the shadow world and desists one from aspiring towards “the sight of the character of goodness” (66) which “is a prerequisite for intellectual conduct” (66). Plato affirms that without the knowledge of truth, man will be corrupt, or at the very best, incomplete. This idea later inspired philosophers to consider whether or not this assertion bears validity. Is literature one of the “shadows of artefacts” (65) that blinds those in pursuit of truth? Are those who belong to the world of divine realities the only people who can have the “sight of the character of goodness?” (66) These questions and others made Plato’s writings instrumental in influencing future ideas regarding writing and whether literature, or representation, is a conduit or an obstacle in leading people closer to divine truth and reality. Plato’s contribution to literary studies could appropriately be called one of the cornerstones that laid the foundation for the construction of literary criticism and theory. Thus, his role among classical literary theory cannot be ignored due to the controversy his arguments engendered during that time.
Although Plato’s ideas on representation and reality were significant in impacting literary thought and criticism, they do, however, contain inaccuracies. First, Plato does not recognize that he himself uses a form of representation to convey his beliefs. He uses literature to clarify his ideas though rebukes those who look to them for truth. Plato clearly contradicts himself in this regard. He cannot be against something and then use that something to his own advantage. Secondly, human nature needs a channel through which it can come to find truth. Abstractions are not enough for people; they need a material form to associate with. To find truth, Plato states man must leave behind his senses and come into the world of reason; however, reason, the senses and reality cannot be segregated. When one brings them together they can come to find truth. Plato is blinded by this fact due to his rigid conviction that reason alone is necessary, but this is not so. Thirdly, representation, though it is a lesser form of reality does not mean it is an invalid means to communicate truth. Religion and literature, for example, have worked collectively together for millennia. Written words, representative images, oral traditions etc. keep intact the beliefs of others and instruct followers in coming to find the higher realities or the “realm of the knowledge of goodness” (66).
Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” impacted the world of literature and the understanding of complex concepts in ways never before witnessed in literature and for this it deserves credit. It challenged the minds of men to reflect deeply upon the idea of how it was one could find reality and truth. Plato was correct in highlighting the necessity for man to attain truth and to not take what one sees at face value. Furthermore, he was wise to challenge the reader to want to know more and to ask himself where it is he dwells and whether he possesses reality. Thus, Plato’s work can be looked upon as a valuable source that lead the classical world of literature towards a new understanding the significance of literature and its significance on the human persons.

In Defense of the Sabboth

Many young Catholics in the 21st century have begun asking themselves what it means to be Catholic in modern times. Does one still have to keep the Sabbath? Can one still be a good Catholic and miss mass regularly? In the minds of many young Catholics, no, they don’t and yes, they can. In a 2005 National Catholic Reporter survey, ninety-five percent of young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five stated they believed one can be a good Catholic and not go to mass (D’Antonio). The survey also stated that only fifteen percent of young Catholics go to mass regularly and that only thirty-three percent confessed they would never leave the Church. What these statistics reveal is the urgent need to reeducate young Catholics who hold such opinions because they are not Catholic. Too many of today’s young adults are redefining what it means to be a good Catholic. This crisis needs to be addressed post haste before other people begin losing the right understanding of orthodox Catholicism. The intention of this paper, therefore, is to shed light upon the erring perspective of many young Catholics in this country who believe you can be a faithful Catholic and not attend mass. I will explain, using logic, Scripture and Church teaching, why one must follow the command to keep holy the Sabbath and why it is impossible to be a good Catholic and not attend mass weekly if one wishes to be a faithful follower of Christ.
Catholics must keep the Sabbath day holy if they wish to be Catholic. “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. But on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exodus 20:8-10). These words, given to us by God Himself are not to be taken half-heartedly. God created a covenant with man, and man, in gratitude for this covenant, should say thank you by giving God the worship and adoration He deserves. Catholics tend to forget that the covenant between God and man meant so much to God that He sent His only beloved Son to suffer and die in order to save us from our sins and bring us to eternal life. Because this concept seems alien to most young adults, it helps to compare this idea with something on a purely natural level. For example, if someone were to save our life from death through CPR, we would thank them profoundly. So too should we be with God. We should want to thank God who saved not only our bodies, but also our immortal souls from everlasting death, since He really did save us by bringing us back into friendship with Him. Thus, to give God one day a week is the least we can do in gratitude for all He did and continues to do for us.
Next comes the issue relating to the filial obedience we owe God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the “third commandment of the Decalogue recalls the holiness of the Sabbath: ‘The seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest’" (2168). Thus, Sunday is a day to rest. Why? Because God said so and if we love God we will keep His commandments. Christ stated at the Last Supper “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth Me. And he that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him” (John 14:21). If one wants to work on saving their soul and gaining salvation, one must always do what God says. To do otherwise is to not obey God, to sin, and hence grow farther away from God. Is this something people really want to do? Perhaps not, but they do not consider that God loves obedience and especially loves those who follow His commands. Whom does a mother have greater affection for, her obedient child or her disobedient child? The answer is obviously the obedient one, but God is the same way. Obedience is, therefore, the proof of your love for God and the key to starting an intimate friendship with Him. “If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love” (John 15:10). If we will want this love, we must show Him our love.
Furthermore, if one wanted to look at the Ten Commandments on a scale of importance from top to bottom, it says something having keeping the Sabbath number three on the “top ten” list of things you must do to be saved. This obviously reveals that God Himself sees this as something of utmost importance to us, since it is to Him. He knows that if we are to be His children we need to give Him our time. As with any relationship, there needs to be time together and time spent getting to know the other person. God, knowing man better than he knows himself, wants to have an intimate relationship with him so that he can come to know, love, serve, obey and please God which will only increase the chances of his being happy with Him forever in eternity. Why would we want to go to heaven and spend time with someone we didn’t want to spend time with while on Earth? As Christ says “If any man minister to me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my minister be” (John 12: 26). If we are to be His friends in Heaven, we must start by doing so now.
The next argument to refute is the idea that one can both be a good Catholic and not attend mass on Sunday. First, it must be stated that this idea is doctrinally impossible. Article 2180 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church emphatically declares “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.” Additionally, article 2181states “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.” To miss mass, therefore, without sufficient reason is a grave matter, which translates into mortal sin. Mortal sin means you are outside God’s grace and, should you die in that state, would go to hell. Additionally, in the gospel of St. John, Jesus says "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you will not have life in you." (John 6:53). To not go to mass, to not receive the very body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is to not have life in you. You are outside of Christ and hence are not being a good Catholic. Therefore to say one can miss mass and be a good Catholic is both wrong and impossible.
In conclusion, while many of today’s young adults are unaware of their error, it is nevertheless necessary that the truth be revealed so their attitudes can be corrected and so they can begin to practice and preach the true faith which Christ revealed. The people surveyed from this poll need to be told that keeping the Sabbath is an obligation which we, as Catholics, owe to Almighty God without question. For in the end, God wants nothing but our good. If we trust Him and do what He says, then we know that what we do is for our good and will lead us closer to achieving that union with God which we all crave. When we love someone we want to be with them. Because God loves us, He wants us to be with Him. We should, then, want to give Him back that same love, by following His commandments and spending time with Him at mass. To deliberately not follow His command to keep the Sabbath, is not loving God and ergo, not being a good Catholic. While it is hoped that this reality will open the minds of these young adults, one can only pray that at some point, God will touch their hearts and guide them back into full union with the Church and thus full union with Christ, by their coming to love God and observe His laws.








Works Cited
Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington, DC. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1997. 31 Oct. 2006 .
D’Antonio, William. “Survey of U.S. Catholic: Generational Differences.” National
Catholic Reporter. Table 4 (2005). 20 Oct. 2005
.
The Holy Bible. Douay-Rheims Version. Rockford, Il. TAN Books, 1989. DRBO.
2003. 20 Oct. 2006 < http://www.drbo.org/>.