Quaestiones

Question 1: Whether Blogging Is Permissible when One has Given Up the Internet for Lent.

Objection 1. It would seem otherwise, since the blog itself, and the means of posting to it, reside on and require access to the Internet, respectively.

Objection 2. Furthermore, merely writing the blog posts offline in a word processor, then uploading them on Sunday would also violate this resolution, since the essential nature of the promise--to avoid the frivolous use of time on the Internet during Lent--is still broken by spending time on a pursuit that has as its natural end a form of communication that requires the Internet.

On the contrary, blogging is not essentially different from writing for printed media, which is a worthwhile and non-trivial pursuit, and not covered by any promise to give up the Internet for Lent.

I answer that, the vow to give up the Internet during Lent is a shorthand method of stating "giving up frivolous pursuits using the Internet," which the Philosopher surely would have agreed is one of the primary usages of the Internet. However, especially for one who has vowed to spend more time writing during Lent, blogging is not necessarily a frivolous pursuit, so long as care is taken to avoid the Five Lowest Forms. In fact, for one who has promised to spend more time writing, a blog is no different than any other media for the promulgation of the written word.

This simplistic understanding of the prohibition of the use of the Internet during Lent, in fact, stands as an obstacle to one who must write more, especially if his primary word processor is an online application. Clearly, one can promise to write more and also simultaneously not waste time on the Internet.

This is particularly evident for one whose job requires use of the Internet and email. Since his Lentent penance cannot supersede his duty to use the just fruits of the Internet to do his job, it can clearly be seen that giving up the Internet for Lent does not include all uses of the Internet, but merely those that are contrary to productivity.

Reply to Objection 1. While blogging does indeed use the Internet in myriad ways, both as a means of creating the content (form) of the blog post, and of posting the content for others to read (matter), this usage of the Internet can promote a self-betterment and more effective use of time, which is not what is intended to be avoided when one gives up the Internet for Lent.

Reply to Objection 2. That blogging is not essentially different from other forms of the written word seems to lend credence to the idea that blogging is allowed to one who has given up the Internet for Lent. If an act is no different from another act, any prohibitions against the one ought apply to the other, and should the first be acceptable, so ought the second.


Question 2: Whether Posting on Facebook, or Linking to Blog Posts on Facebook Is Prohibited to One Who has Given Up the Internet for Lent.


Objection 1. It would seem otherwise, since if one is permitted to upload the written word to a blog, one ought further be permitted to promote that written word in other venues.

Objection 2. Furthermore, what is a Facebook status update, if not a short blog post?

On the contrary, Facebook is a tool for socializing. To post a status update or link a blog post without a continued presence does a sort of violence to one's friends who reasonably expect to converse, but the continued presence constitutes a trivial usage of the Internet, which is not allowed by the vow.

I answer that, Facebook is, by its very nature, a frivolous use of the Internet. Surely, it is written, "can anything good come from [Facebook]?" The limitation of status updates to a mere 420 characters means that a status update cannot contain any of the intellectual depth of a blog post. These status updates cannot ever be considered anything but triviality.

Additionally, while simply posting a link to a blog post may not, in and of itself, violate the prohibition against the foolish use of one's time, the Theologian surely would have written that Facebook represents such a great time suck that one should not even log in, even for such a noble purpose as publicly promoting the written word, for the temptation for he who has given up the Internet for Lent is simply too great to justify the noble intent.

Reply to Objection 1. Promotion of the written word ought always be guided, as should every aspect of life, by the virtue of temperance. Because one is allowed to further the cause of the written word does not mean one should use every conceivable method of doing such. This is particularly true for those methods that tend towards triflingness.

Reply to Objection 2. While the Five Lowest Forms may tend towards the puerile nature of a Facebook status update, the latter, by its nature, must be different from a thoughtful and intelligent blog post. Those things which are said in the High Forms of blogging cannot be replicated in a Facebook status update.

Question 3: Whether a 19-Month-Old May Post Pictures to Facebook when His Father has Given Up the Internet for Lent.


Objection. It would seem otherwise, since 19-month-olds cannot use the Internet, let alone Facebook, without the assistance of their fathers. And since fathers who have given up the Internet for Lent are prohibited from using Facebook, the 19-month-old must respect his father's sacrifice and not tempt him to post picture on Facebook.

On the contrary, Lenten prohibitions must never fall on others to enforce. A father's vows should not in any ways place undue burden on his son.

I answer that, the duties of a father cannot be superseded by his Lenten penance. Since many depend on him, such as his son who cannot use the good fruits of social networking without him, and his parents, who depend on the numerous photographic evidences of the well-breeding and good rearing of their grandchild, the father must never abandon them. Surely, the Angelic Doctor would agree that the judicious and temperate assistance lent to his son to post pictures on Facebook does not violate prohibitions against frivolous use of his time on the Internet.

Reply to Objection. The 19-month-old's inability to share in the fruits of friendship without his father's assistance means that the father's penance cannot preclude the possibility of assisting his son.

The Good Doctor

A day late, but oh well.

"To the Angelic Doctor, we owe the concordance of philosophy and religion, and the admonition never to cite revelation in the proof of a philosophical proposition. Centuries before, Origen had called God the author of two books: scripture and nature. Because of this, Aquinas held that if revelation seemed to conflict with nature, one or the other (or both) had not been properly understood." ~Michael Flynn, "The Age of Faith and Reason"

Since yesterday was the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps we can reflect on how the wisdom of the Dumb Ox has shaped the course of philosophy and how much our modern scientific age owes its metaphysical assumptions to him. Perhaps we should celebrate, as Mike Flynn suggests, by doing something logical.

Elsewhere around the interblogs, Mark Shea is celebrating by discussing whether or not Friday really was the feast of St. Thomas.

Lauda Sion

Sion, lift up thy voice and sing:
Praise thy Savior and thy King,
Praise with hymns thy shepherd true.

All thou canst, do thou endeavour:
Yet thy praise can equal never
Such as merits thy great King.

See today before us laid
The living and life-giving Bread,
Theme for praise and joy profound.

The same which at the sacred board
Was, by our incarnate Lord,
Giv'n to His Apostles round.

Let the praise be loud and high:
Sweet and tranquil be the joy
Felt today in every breast.

On this festival divine
Which records the origin
Of the glorious Eucharist.

On this table of the King,
Our new Paschal offering
Brings to end the olden rite.

Here, for empty shadows fled,
Is reality instead,
Here, instead of darkness, light.

His own act, at supper seated
Christ ordain'd to be repeated
In His memory divine;

Wherefore now, with adoration,
We, the host of our salvation,
Consecrate from bread and wine.

Hear, what holy Church maintaineth,
That the bread its substance changeth
Into Flesh, the wine to Blood.

Doth it pass thy comprehending?
Faith, the law of sight transcending
Leaps to things not understood.

Here beneath these signs are hidden
Priceless things, to sense forbidden,
Signs, not things, are all we see.

Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
Yet is Christ in either sign,
All entire, confessed to be.

They, who of Him here partake,
Sever not, nor rend, nor break:
But, entire, their Lord receive.

Whether one or thousands eat:
All receive the self-same meat:
Nor the less for others leave.

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food:
But with ends how opposite!

Here 't is life: and there 't is death:
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.

Nor a single doubt retain,
When they break the Host in twain,
But that in each part remains
What was in the whole before.

Since the simple sign alone
Suffers change in state or form:
The signified remaining one
And the same for evermore.

Lo! bread of the Angels broken,
For us pilgrims food, and token
Of the promise by Christ spoken,
Children’s meat, to dogs denied.

Shewn in Isaac's dedication,
In the manna's preparation:
In the Paschal immolation,
In old types pre-signified.

Jesu, shepherd of the sheep:
Thou thy flock in safety keep,
Living bread, thy life supply:
Strengthen us, or else we die,
Fill us with celestial grace.

Thou, who feedest us below:
Source of all we have or know:
Grant that with Thy Saints above,
Sitting at the feast of love,
We may see Thee face to face.
Amen. Alleluia.

~St. Thomas Aquinas, for the feast of Corpus Christi, 1264

For those who want to hear the chant in Latin.



At St. John's today, it was sung by the cantress with the angelic voice, so imagine that, except higher and more beautiful.