text:
My 5 year old is very mature for his age. He has an amazing vocabulary and a great attention span. He is very interested in watching the evening news, but often times the news is filled with stories of murder and tragedy. We don't have a problem talking to him about these topics if necessary, but I'm concerned about letting him be exposed too much. What is a good way to handle this situation?
I agree you want to be careful on how much tragedy you expose a 5 year old to, especially considering that the amount of coverage tragedies get on televised news programs far outweighs their frequency of occurrence in reality. You don't want your child to think that every hour there are murders, rapes, and other horrors happening in his neighborhood, nor do you want him to feel fearful of his own safety in his environment.
I presume your 5 year old is interested in watching the evening news because he sees you do it, and I wager that if you shifted your interest his interests would follow. Maybe the next time the news is on you can get up from the couch and say something like, "I think I'd rather go outside and kick the soccer ball around," or whatever, and he'll probably get up and follow you out.
If this is not the case and your child is genuinely drawn to news programs, I'd suggest picking and choosing what news shows he watches. While the PBS News Hour certainly covers world tragedies, including wars, they don't focus on local matters or the type of "if it bleeds it leads" stories that are all to common on local news programs and, to an extent, national nightly news shows.
In the UK there is a programme on the BBC called Newsround, it has been going for decades, which is news specifically aimed and edited for children.
While it can be a little too focused on human interest stories and cuddly animals, it does also try to offer a simplified version of the news.
This would be a great sort of introduction - not just the subject matter, but the phrasing and words used to describe the issues.
Interesting question.
When I was growing up, (I'm a baby boomer), I can still remember Dan Rather covering the Viet Nam war while my family and I watched from the dinner table. He was taking gun fire and I was riveted to the TV. This was during a time when there were only 3 network stations, no cable tv, no video games, cell phones, internet etc. This was pretty explicit coverage for the time. I can still remember how it made an impact on me.
My point is that, we didn't see alot of the stuff that children are seeing today. There is alot more coverage of tragedy in the world in my estimation because there is alot more "coverage" i.e. infinitely more media outlets and channels for which it can be delivered
Yes, I'm going to make my point promise. Because of this your child is much more sophisticated than I was, or even you were at his age at filtering all of the information that is coming in. Watching the news with parental or adult supervision can only improve his maturity and understanding of the world we live in.
Good Luck.
To be somewhat generic, I think that it really depends on what is covered in your area and how keen a person is to address the topics that are covered. Your approach seems good to me. The only thing that I might add is regular discussion of the topics, even when it doesn't seem necessary... just to get an idea of what he is processing.
I know children who while intelligent, won't talk much about recent happenings without being prompted. I've found that initiating discussion can redirect the "secrecy" - for lack of a better word.
Our answer is: PVR. Record the news, watch it after the kids go to bed.


text:
I am writing several functions which all take similar input parameters (a complicated nested list structure). Is there some way for me to define a pattern that can be used in multiple places and allows me to extract the individual parameters?
(I find
OptionsPattern[] interesting because its definition isn't really visible but somehow
OptionValues[] is able to extract information from it.)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Rite of Spring
Bold rock musical addresses adult themes
By Jenny Lower 11/08/2012
Ten minutes into the Actors' Repertory Theatre of Simi's production of Spring Awakening — around the time six German schoolboys in ties and knee socks fling down their slates, leap off desks, stomp their feet and belt out an anthem of teen angst, or in other words, instantaneously — you realize you are watching something great.
Stephen Sater and Duncan Sheik's rock musical adaptation of Frank Wedekind's subversive 1891 play took Broadway by storm in 2006, sweeping the Tony Awards with its fresh-faced cast and earning legions of followers among passionate young theatergoers. Director David Ralphe and producer Jan Glasband have produced a version so faithful to the original, it borders on worshipful, but nearly every bit as energetic and exciting. Simply put, this is one of the best musicals I have seen on county stages in years.
The musical layers a contemporary rock opera mentality (think Tommy or Hair) over a resurrected story: Spring's Awakening, a tale of young teens in a small German town discovering their sexuality amidst dogmatic repression. Costumes and hairstyles remain true to the time, but a live band accompanies the actors, who break into rock ballads clutching hand-held mics. Exposed brick suggests rather than re-creates the provincial setting.
At opening we meet Wendla (Chelsea Pitillo), a ripening beauty and aunt twice over, eager to learn how babies are made. She sits earnestly at her mother's knee, but the mortified woman covers her daughter's face and mumbles something about loving one's husband. Wendla remains confounded.
Such evasion characterizes nearly all the adults, masterfully captured by only two actors (Sean Harrington and Lori Lee Gordon, who also did the costumes). They ignore, belittle or abuse the youngsters. Is it any surprise the independent-minded Melchior (Chrys Ryan) determines there must be a better way?
We can guess the play's trajectory from the moment Melchior shows his friend Moritz (an outstanding Nick Bernardi) some anatomically correct doodles, but still we watch Wendla and Melchior's tentative steps toward first love with all the anticipation of our own. And when the first half concludes with its inevitable climax, the realistic staging feels less gratuitous or salacious than brimming with wonder at the mystery of human sexuality.
The show's transgressiveness helps account for its popularity among teens; their parents may be less enthusiastic. Abortion, homosexuality, incest and suicide all get some treatment here. The second half plays like an indictment against the grown-ups, with unearned tragedy raining down on our heroes. Under Matthew Park's musical direction, the young cast captures the emotional high points with ensemble numbers like "Totally Fucked" and Ryan and Pitillo's exquisite duo, "The Word of Your Body." Choreographer Becky Castells is at her finest with "The Bitch of Living" and "Touch Me."
Awakening is a bold choice for a conservative town, but it feels too relevant to be dismissed simply as controversy for controversy's sake. The ARTS team has created something vital and extraordinary.
Spring Awakening, Fri. and Sat., 8 p.m.; Sun., 2 p.m., through Dec. 2. Simi Valley Cultural Arts Center, 3050 Los Angeles Ave., Simi Valley, 583-7900, www.simi-arts.org/.
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT


text:
New Missal Survey Shows Most Priests Dissatisfied
The closer you get, the worse it looks.That seems to be the takeaway from a collection of surveys over the past year intended to gauge the response of Catholics to the new English translation of the Roman Missal. The controversial new English translation of the Roman Missal had its debut at the end of 2011, amid doubts of its ability to gain wide appeal. Give it a chance its advocates advised, youll get used to it.
A year later, when a CARA survey reported that 70% of lay Catholics in America agreed with the statement that The new translation is a good thing, it seemed these predictions were justified. To say that the translation is a good thing might seem to be a rather lukewarm endorsement, but these results were positive enough to be encouraging. Online polls conducted around the same time however revealed a more troubling picture, showing considerably more negative opinion, especially among priests, who arguably have the greatest investment in the new translation because of their role in the daily celebration of the liturgy. They use the Missal every day, and know its pluses and minuses better than anyone.
- The Tablet found that clergy gave the new translation very negative marks. Of the 1189 clergy who participated, 70% were unhappy with the translation and wished to see it revised. In a strange twist, considerable numbers of respondents who preferred the Extraordinary Form (which is in Latin) took the survey. 94% of them approved of the new translation. But 57% of those who preferred the Ordinary Form disliked it.
- US Catholic polled more than 1200 priests in a reader survey, and found that 58% agreed with the statement: I dislike the new translations and still cant believe Ill have to use them for the foreseeable future. 49% of Catholics in the pews also registered unhappiness with the translation whereas only 17% said they enjoy them as much as or more than the old translation.
Observers have taken the more critical Tablet and US Catholic results with a grain of salt. Yes, they indicate dissatisfaction, and especially strong dissatisfaction among clergy, but how reliable are these polls?
The results of a new study, released today, sets our knowledge of the opinions of priests on a firmer footing.
The survey is narrowly focused on the opinion of priests in the United States. It shows that priests are sharply divided, with a clear majority disliking the new translation and calling for its revision.
The specific findings are striking. 59% of priests do not like the new translation, compared with 39% who do. An overwhelming 80% agree that some of the language is awkward and distracting. 61% think the translation needs urgently to be revised. In what is perhaps the most timely element, 61% of priests do not want the rest of the liturgical books to be translated in the same manner. The process of retranslating the Liturgy of the Hours and the rites of the Sacraments is currently underway.
Jeffrey Tucker of Chant Caf, who likes the new texts and was initially surprised by the results, speculated that a generational split might account for the negative opinions: "They came to terms with one way, received vast amounts of catechesis along these lines, and developed a more casual liturgical style to go along with it, and now they are told to do it another way. This creates a real tension: am I supposed to speak in the language of the people or not?"
Other commenters, however, felt that the negative evaluation was not so much fueled by resistance to change as by resistance to making the prayers of the Mass more awkward. Fr. Michael Ryan of Seattle, founder of the website What if we just said wait? noted that the proportion of discontent revealed in the Diekmann survey contrasts sharply with reactions to the introduction of English into the Mass following Vatican II. "These results are a far cry from the way priests and people reacted when the Mass in English was first introduced in the late 1960s," Ryan said, A survey taken at that time indicated that 85-87% of Catholics (and especially parish priests) preferred the new Mass to the old (Mark Massa, SJ, Worship 81 (2007), p. 122).
A preconceived bias against the texts also would not account for another interesting finding: 15% of those who had looked forward to the new Missal ended up disliking it. By comparison, only 10% grew to like it through the process of using it.All 178 Latin Rite dioceses in the US were invited to participate in the survey and, of these, 32 from all geographical regions of the country chose to take part. A total of 1,536 priests (diocesan and religious) responded, a response rate of 42.5%.
The survey was conducted under the auspices of the Godfrey Diekmann, OSB, Center for Patristics and Liturgical Studies at St. Johns University School of Theology-Seminary, in Collegeville MN. The project manager was Chase Becker, assisted by Audrey Seah and Christine Condyles, and advised by Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, with the aid of Dr. Pamela Bacon, a professional consultant.
More than half of the respondents submitted written comments, a total of 799 comments. These covered a wide variety of subjects, including aesthetics, grammar and syntax, reception by their people, translation principles, ecclesiastical process, vocabulary, theological content, book format, and music. In these comments, critique of the Missal outweighed affirmation by a four to one margin. The full text of the comments can be found here.
Two questions about process, unique to this survey, also showed sobering results. More than half (55%) of the respondents are not confident that priests views of the translation will be taken seriously. Nearly half (49%) do not approve of the role of the Holy See in bringing the new translation about, compared with 39% who do.
Fr. Edward Foley, Capuchin, professor at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, said, "The most disappointing result of this survey for me is that most priests doubt that their views about the translation will be seriously addressed; on the other hand, this too is not surprising since they were never consulted in the first place." Peter Jeffery, professor of medieval studies and theology at Notre Dame, asked: "Why did 82.1% of dioceses decide not to forward this survey to their priests? Do they think it is better not to know what priests think?" Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, executive director of ICEL questioned the representative value of the responses, pointing out that the respondents constitute less than 3.7% of priests in the US. Without some indication of selection bias, however, the sample size would not seem to indicate that the survey is weak. The CARA survey concerning the Missal, for example, had 1,239 participants, a much smaller fraction of the total Catholic population which the survey is presumed to represent.
For those priests who are well satisfied with the new translation, its daily use has been rewarding. For the majority, however, it has been a burden and a source of discouragement. On an even deeper level, the conflict they experience has serious ramifications. As Fr. Anthony Cutcher, president of the National Federation of Priests Councils observed: "The Eucharistic liturgy and the ability to celebrate it well is at the core of a priest's identity. With the promulgation of the Third Roman Missal, we priests have been placed in an untenable position, forced to choose between fidelity to the magisterium and feeding our people."
When a majority of priests are unhappy about something as important as the Missal, the situation calls for creative leadership and constructive responses. It is not clear, however, whether those in positions of authority are either ready or willing to respond. Msgr. Rick Hilgartner, director of the office of the BCDW at the USCCB, declined to comment for this story, as did Bishop Gregory Aymond, chair of the BCDW, and Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, incoming chair of the BCDW. Not replying to a request for comment were: Bishop Arthur Seratelli, former chair of the BCDW and current chair of ICEL; Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB; Cardinal Francis George, former USCCB president under whom the implementation date was set; Cardinal George Pell, chair of Vox Clara; Msgr. Jim Moroney, executive secretary of Vox Clara; and Fr. Dennis McManus, advisor to Vox Clara. Reactions to the survey were provided by Bishop Robert Brom of San Diego, Father Anthony Cutcher of the National Federation of Priests' Councils, Fr. Edward Foley, Capuchin of Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Peter Jeffery of Notre Dame, Fr. Michael Ryan of Seattle, Jeffery Tucker of Chant Cafe, Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth of ICEL, Fr. Mark Wedig OP of Barry University, And Bishop Donald Trautman, retired bishop of Erie. The full text of their comments is available here.
About the Author
Rita Ferrone is the author of several books about liturgy, including Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium (Paulist Press).
94 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
I am also surprised that such a large minority is satisfied with the new missal.Every English-speaking Catholic who has a chance to approach pope Francis should think it their duty to mention the problems with the new missal. Imagine that he decides to give more power to conferences of bishops. Can that be applied retroactively, say, back to 1998?
Speaking as a layman, I like the new translation. And there is a scientific poll showing that most other Catholic laymen like it, too: http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2012/11/tracking-changes-accepted... parish is fortunate enough to have a Benedictine come to say Mass on the weekends. Not only does Father say the new translation with aplomb, he sings much of it. And he regularly prays the First Eucharistic Prayer, beautifully. (Our pastor also does a fine job with the new translation, but he does not sing it).
Off topic, with apologies.On the Whispers in the Loggia blog site Rocco has posted the audio feed of the talk that Pope Francis gave on the vigil of Pentecost. It's 38+ minutes long, but worth every second of your time. Don't miss it if at all possible.
Fr. Imbelli, Your last paragraph captures my point. Using whatever resources available, including Latin liturgical texts, why should the USCCB, or some other appropriate agency, appoint a committee of competent liturgical scholars to produce, in English, a set of liturgical texts for the American Catholic use? The committee would have much to learn from relevant predecessor texts, but would not be charged with confining itself to making translations.
I'm surprised that so many priests are happy with the new translation.
Rita,thanks for the post and the links.One clarification: you speak of those who "declined to comment for this story."Does that refer to this post, and did you seek comments from the people in question?
On the other hand half of those who are satisfied believe it needs revision. Clearly, the bishops have a crisis of confidence among their clergy. Just as clearly, it hasn't been a good decade for them at all. They have Bill Donohue in their court. Maybe that's enough.
The fundamental split seems to be between priests (the Diekmann/St. John's survey) and the laity, i.e. the vast preponderance of the church (the CARA study).Naturally, the priests are much more intensively immersed in the missal than the people are. But is the Roman Missal the priests' book, or the entire church's book? Suppose, for the sake of conversation, the people's parts were left intact, and the parts that belong to the priest - the collects and other propers, the Eucharistic Prayers, and so on, were re-translated (yet again). Would the people care? I expect the answer, by and large, would be, No.
Joe -- ha! I'm with you, that's the real surprise here.Bob -- You are welcome. Hmm, I guess "this story" is a bit ambiguous. I didn't mean this particular blog post but rather the whole event of publication of the data. The results of the survey were sent (pre-publication) to all the people listed, with a request for comment. Those who sent responses (some of which I have quoted here in part) are all posted at the Diekmann website in full. Some declined. Some did not respond. I did not personally contact these people. My source, however, is reliable. :)Claire -- Pope Francis seems to evince a strong appreciation for the vernacular; what his thoughts are on translation, however, is anybody's guess.
Was the question asked whether the priests "edited" the prayers in some way -- even as simple as putting a period in place of "and" and starting a new sentence?Perhaps the greater satisfaction among the laity is also the fruit of discreet editing of what in some cases is decidedly awkward syntax.
"But is the Roman Missal the priests book, or the entire churchs book?"I am not sure what that question means. When I go to Mass, the Missal is the book with which I am praying, whether I am actually speaking the prayer or the presider is speaking it for us. But at home, before I
Sorry, computer jump back there. What I was saying is:But at home, before I go to Mass, I have stopped saying the Collect out loud because I usually can't do it on a first reading. Do priests practice it before Mass? At home, then, the priest's part is still "the entire church's book" or would be if I could make it work. Finally, I still have some doctrinal problems with the "people's" parts that could be cleared up simply by a return to English.
Rita--Were any of those involved in conducting the survey sympathetic to the new missal? I see Fr. Anthony Ruff was an advisor. Based on his comments in here, I imagine he was decidedly not sympathetic.
Tell them to stand in line!
I find I have to read the collects over before Mass, which isn't a bad thing in any case. Some of them, if read properly, can be effective; but most of them are poorly done. Years ago I started making and using my own translations of the collects and the prefaces--thought I owed it to the Church not to use the banalities produced by the first ICEL.
It has been my experience that the coming of this new missal has once again occasioned the law of unintended consequences. Because of the awkward translations (and some of the over the top imagery and vocabulary), I have found some priests who never would have changed the words in the old translation now do it all the time. So an effort to tighten things up has actually led to opposite results
Rita, is it true that this project was headed by a liturgy student at Collegeville?
With a 42.5% response rate, it seems very possible that the priests who responded were those who felt most strongly about the issue. It is therefore irresponsible to make statements such as this:
59% of priests do not like the new translation, compared with 39% who do.
That sort of statement should be amended to read:
59% of priests who were motivated to respond to a well-known malcontent's survey disliked the new translation.
Oh wait, I forgot: only 32 out of the 178 dioceses in the United States even participated in the first place, and it is also likely that this is not just happening at random (such that you can assume the 32 represent the rest of the 178).So the statement above should really read:
Out of the 18% of dioceses who were willing to participate in a well-known malcontent's survey, and out of the 42.5% of priests in those dioceses who were motivated enough to respond, 59% of them disliked the new translation. In other words, about 906 priests out of 39,000 nationwide, or a mere 2.3%, said they disliked the new translation.
The collect for next sunday contains a glaring heresy. But it's in the priest's part so the people need not worry. After all, "Suppose, for the sake of conversation, the peoples parts were left intact, and the parts that belong to the priest the collects and other propers, the Eucharistic Prayers, and so on, were re-translated (yet again). Would the people care? I expect the answer, by and large, would be, No."
I heard a conservative priest alter the ungrammatical "acclaim" at the end of the preface. Yes, it's the law of unintended consequences.
"Perhaps the greater satisfaction among the laity is also the fruit of discreet editing of what in some cases is decidedly awkward syntax." Surely.
"Wasting Time," like Msgr. Wadsworth, betrays poor knowledge of polling techniques. We confidently assert what "Americans" think about intervention in Syria, abortion or gun regulation on the basis of smaller samples than the Diekmann Center's. And those assertions seem to play out in the real world.I am intrigued, though, by Wasting Time's implication that some dioceses are so different than others that vastly different results may be obtained there. What are the criteria? Are some Catholic and some not? Who appointed their bishops?
Here are the credentials of the Project Manager, according to the PrayTell website:Chase M. Becker is a Nebraska native and current editorial assistant for Pray Tell. Chase holds a B.A. in Philosophy from Saint Gregory the Great Seminary in Seward, Nebraska and is currently pursuing an M.A. in Liturgical Studies from Saint John's School of TheologySeminary in Collegeville, Minnesota. Chase currently serves as a Liturgical Designer and Consultant and has earned awards in historic preservation from Heritage Nebraska and Preservation North Dakota.The sympathetic-leaning PrayTell commentariat have already weighed in on the likelihood of sampling errors, particularly considering the enormous amount of self-selection that occurred. Self-selecting dioceses participated. Self-selecting clergy from these dioceses participated. And as Jeffrey mentions below, we are given very little of the data.Before we take this survey with any seriousness, why don't we stop and ask for a little transparency.What did the surveys look like? Did they indicate Collegeville as their source or destination, thus influencing participation? Which dioceses were involved and why? Where there any outside scientists involved in the process? Was any outside social scientist consulted for independent evaluation of the procedures?What degree of professionally credible skill was involved in producing this survey? How involved was the in-house scientific consultant? Did she design the survey? Did she evaluate the results or train the liturgy students to a high level of analytical skill before they processed the results? What corrections were made to the raw data?
I would just like the Creed to say that Jesus came down from heaven for us men "and women".
In a better world, 178 of our Dioceses would seriously ask their clergy and laity for their reactions to the new translation and ask for advice about how to go forward from here. The real question to be pondered is why they haven't done exactly that.
"The collect for next sunday contains a glaring heresy. But its in the priests part so the people need not worry. After all, Suppose, for the sake of conversation, the peoples parts were left intact, and the parts that belong to the priest the collects and other propers, the Eucharistic Prayers, and so on, were re-translated (yet again). Would the people care? I expect the answer, by and large, would be, No."So, to follow your logic here, the Collect contains a glaring heresy, but you *don't* want it to be re-translated, unless the people care?
But is the Roman Missal the priests book, or the entire churchs book?"I am not sure what that question means."I think it's pretty straightforward: CARA, whose survey methodology is pretty impeccable, has published survey results indicating that the church, by a strong majority, is happy with the new translation. And now the Diekmann Center has published the results of a survey (whose methodology may be open to question, but let's set that aside; personally, I haven't met a priest yet who has expressed enthusiasm for the translation) indicating that priests, a rather tiny sliver of the church, and by a lesser majority, are dissatisfied. I take the entire thrust of Rita's post to be, 'This is powerful evidence that the translation was poorly done; after all, what could be more damning than that the primary audience for the Missal - priests - are unhappy with it? Therefore, the obvious thing to do is to go back and do it again.'Rita didn't explicitly say that the primary audience for the missal is priests, but it's a reasonable inference from her post. And that assumption is what I'm questioning. And I'm questioning it in a spirit of open inquiry. It seems clear, as I stated in the comment to which you responded, that priests are more intensively immersed in the missal than the average Catholic in the pews (to say nothing of the average Catholic, period, who may not even be in the pews at all). Perhaps priests' opinions should be decisive in this matter.But as Fr. O'Leary pointed out, just because the people don't actually recite the collect aloud during mass, doesn't mean that the collect isn't "for them", too. But the people - the church - according to the best evidence we have (the CARA survey), don't seem particularly dissatisfied with the translation of the collects. What do we make of that? The CARA survey is a big problem for the tear-up-the-translation-and-try-again movement.
Fr. O'Leary: What is the glaring heresy? I presume you're talking about the collect for Trinity Sunday?The translation was intended to be as literal as possible, but they turned "the glory of the eternal Trinity" into "the Trinity of eternal glory."
The collect for next sunday contains a glaring heresy"I'll bite: what is the glaring heresy?Here is the collect for Trinity Sunday, in the new translation:God our Father, who by sending into the worldthe Word of truth and the Spirit of sanctificationmade known to the human race your wondrous mystery,grant us, we pray, that in professing the true faith,we may acknowledge the Trinity of eternal gloryand adore your Unity, powerful in majesty.Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the HOly Spirit,one God, for ever and ever.Here is the same prayer according to the previous translation:Father,you sent your Word to bring us truthand your Spirit to make us holy.Through them we come to know the mystery of your life.Help us to worship you, one God in three Persons,by proclaiming and living our faith in you.Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,one God, for ever and ever.Regarding the content, they both seem to cover more or less the same territory.
Father O'Leary will of course speak for himself. But I think the stumbling block may be the introduction of "your": "your Unity, powerful in majesty" which is not to be found in the Latin and may imply that the unity belongs to the Father alone.
A charitable though unlikely reading of the addition of Your: it might have been motivated by ecumenical sensitivity for Orthodox monarchism.
Reading the accounts above, in my mind the methodology seems sound. You can quibble about generalizability given the return sample size however all of that information was included and all of us can make a determination around the reliability of the results.I think a good way to judge the reliability is just by way of publication and whether it "rings true". Based on the comments posted here, it sounds like the results are, indeed, indicative of the majority of clergy's view of the missal translation.
I think a good way to judge the reliability is just by way of publication and whether it rings true. I don't understand. Are you saying that a survey is true, or scientific, when it "rings true"? That is, is a survey reliable when it confirms what we've already thought, and unreliable when it sheds light on aspects of reality that we hadn't yet considered?
Isn't it true that Francis did not accept the new translation in his diocese?
Re: the collect for Trinity Sunday, I popped over to the Pray Tell blog, where this analysis by Anscar Chapungco is posted:http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Chupungco_Trinity... mistakes are made, they should be corrected. I recall reading once that in the early days of the 1970s translation, there was an error in Eucharistic Prayer IV that was theologically problematic, and it was corrected. Sounds like a good precedent for this collect.
For those who are interested, here is what I was recalling regarding the problem in the old translation of EPIV - it is somewhat similar to that of the Trinity collect under discussion. This is Rev. Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University. as quoted by Felix Just, SJ:"A more delicate problem arose from an English reader who asks: "The difficulty that I, as a mere layman, have with this Preface [of Eucharistic Prayer IV] is that it clearly and most obviously, in English, denies the divinity of Our Blessed Lord and of the Holy Spirit. It starts: 'Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you alone are God, living and true.' Is not this heresy? I know good priests here in England who never use this Eucharistic prayer now. It has to be said, by the way, that all this kind of thing simply causes confusion among the poor laity. Priests and, indeed, bishops should remember the laity when they consider the liturgy. We do not all have degrees in theology; mine is in English and I can, therefore, understand the meaning of words in that language." "Far be it from me to accuse the liturgy of heresy. But our reader certainly has a point that we are before a less-than-adequate translation. "Indeed, if I am not mistaken, this translation was corrected in the missals used in the United States and now reads "you are the one God, living and true." "http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur107.htm
As a priest I was never consulted to give my input, but over all I would say, "it is a bad translation" - collects are extremely difficult to read and the meaning of many of them is obscure and not elusive. Form the survey and from talking to other priests in my diocese, the new translation, putting all other issues aside, needs further improvement - and there is nothing wrong with that. And it is interesting that both those who like it and those who do not like it agree on awkwardness of the sacred texts of the mass.
Wasting Time, like Msgr. Wadsworth, betrays poor knowledge of polling techniques. We confidently assert what Americans think about intervention in Syria, abortion or gun regulation on the basis of smaller samples than the Diekmann Centers.Tom, the issue isn't the size of the sample. You're right about that. The issue, however, is something that you ignore: the sample is decidedly non-random. Only a few dioceses even participated, and then only some of the priests in those dioceses. That means it is simply not credible to maintain that these priests are really representative of all priests. Which in turn means that conclusions such as those stated in the post are irresponsible.
I mean "is elusive"
Jim,thanks for the link to the "Pray Tell" site.Father Anscar confirms my impression and spells out the issue in more detail:Somewhat more disturbing from a theological standpoint is the second petition and adore your Unity, powerful in majesty. How is the Latin text formulated? To begin with, it has no possessive pronoun (your). The inser-tion of your is what causes the problem in the English translation. The Latin text simply states adore the Unity in the power of majesty.It is useful to remember that the one addressed in this prayer is God the Father, not the holy Trinity. In the new English translation the phrase your Unity would seem to refer to the Father, unless by the application of some elliptical device we complete the statement so that it would read as follows: Father, we adore your Unity with the Word of truth and the Spirit of sanctification. As the English version stands, we are given the wrong impression that we adore the Unity of God the Father. This is certainly not an insignificant theological issue. The passage is inaccurate and should be rectified by deleting the possessive pronoun your. What the Latin text says is We adore the Unity [of the three Divine Persons] in the power of majesty.
"Wasting Time," you seem to be saying that a) the dioceses that participated are different than the ones that didn't, and b) the priests that participated are different than the ones who didn't. As for the first point, do you mean that the Church is so different in different dioceses that her priests think differently about things as basic as the missal? I find that to be a stretch.On the second point, non-respondents are always a bit of a problem because we know, for openers, that they are different in one way from the ones who responded. But the participation rates in this study look to be reasonable for sampling purposes. It would be problematic if all the priests in one participating diocese responded and none of the priests in another did. That would make the investigators take a second look. But that's not what happened here.
I'm not surprised at these findings. The wording is awkward and stilted, difficult to follow in many instances. It reminds me a the "literal translations" I used to do in Spanish I or one of those translations you hear sometimes from the UN or elsewhere, where you know the translator is doing it on the spot, but it is very stilted and when you read the transcript it will be cleaned up. In the case of the Missal, my impression has been that they tried to be so literal in the Latin to English that they missed the actual meaning in some instances, and used awkward phasing in others. In our parish we have a joke that we know that Fr. Jim, a somewhat cantankerous, (but very good guy), retired priest uses the old version when nobody is around to complain...When I asked Fr. Jim, he just smiled and changed the subject...I have a suspicion that a few of the priest who post here might do the same...
Here's Lossky on monarchism, in an article arguing against the Filioque found here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDsQ...If the Father is the personal cause of the hypostases, He is also, for that very reason,the principle of their common possession of one and the same nature; and in that sense,He is the "source" of the common divinity of the Three. The revelation of this nature, theexternalization of the unknowable essence of the Three, is not a reality foreign to theThree hypostases. Every energy, every manifestation, comes from the Father, isexpressed in the Son, and goes forth in the Holy Spirit. This procession natural,"energetic," manifesting must be clearly distinguished from hypostatic procession,which is personal, internal, from the Father alone. The same monarchy of the Fatherconditions both the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit His personal existence ekmonou tou Patros and the manifesting, natural procession of the commonGodhead ad extra in the Holy Spirit, through the Son dia Huiou.I don't agree with all of this (I think the doctrine of the Filioque is beautiful and true) but what seems germane is Lossky's continued invocation of the Fathers as authorities on monarchism.
Tom -- yes, different priests in different dioceses may think differently. Do you think all of the priests in Lincoln Nebraska are identical in every way to the priests in San Francisco, for example? A commenter at the Pray Tell blog put it so well that I'll take the liberty of copying it here:
Let us say that an entity known for Reform of the Reform proclivities let us say Adoremus, or, more analogously, Kenrick-Glennon (at least under Archbp. Burke) had commissioned a research group to conduct a similar, voluntary survey of priests on their attitudes about the new Missal. Let us say that a limited number of dioceses chose to participate. Let us say that it included little to no background data on respondents. And let us say that its findings suggest that a large majority of priests very much approved of the new Missal.If that happened, I think you, and Fr. Ruff, would be quite skeptical and youd have a right to be. Youd wonder if a disproportionate number of participating dioceses might be ones like (say) Lincoln, perhaps because theyd be more at ease cooperating with the likes of Adoremus or Kenrick-Glennon because theyre liturgically sympatico. Youd want to see a lot more background on respondents. And youd be right to want that.
Medical statistical tests also rely on self-selected volunteers. To try to prevent self-selection bias, they ask them general questions and try to make sure that they have a representative sample in terms of what they think might be relevant. For example, here the person designing the test would eliminate some of the volunteers to make sure that, for example, the age distribution fits the age distribution of priests in general. They would similarly make sure that their sample has the right proportion of pastors of rich or of poor parishes, of associate pastors, etc. By restricting attention to such a "representative" sample, even though they have fewer data to work with, yet, they make it much more likely that the statistics they gather are meaningful.
Wasting Time, Lincoln, I hope, is sui generis. Including it might possibly be like including the New York chapter of the ACLU in a survey of tea party attitudes. But I've lived in such disparate places as Chicago, Kansas City, Trenton (NJ) and West Palm Beach (FL), and the priests (adjusted for age) have been pretty much the same the whole world over.
The new translation is not good. What does it mean that lay Catholics mostly find that the new translation is good? It reveals that they're not listening. That may be the takeaway message. Of course, at some level we knew that: it is when the priest speaks alone that people whisper to their neighbor, cough, take a kleenex from their purse, shift in their seat, check their kids's attitude and chide them if needed, look for change, pick up something fallen on the floor, discretely pick their nose or ear, rush straighten their clothes, tie their shoelace, etc. But this new translation reveals that the lack of attention is not occasional but systematic. In an assembly of 100 people one might be able to count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who are actively participating in the prayer of the presider.
When I saw NCROnline's report yesterday, I opined the Missal should be burned. However, since I don't like the idea of book-burning, I'm going to edit my comment and suggest the new missal should be tossed into a recycling bin: No need to waste the paper, after all!I've also forwarded this thread to "Joseph Kurtz", our AB in Louisville known for sucking up to the pope.
If, as reported, 70% of the laity thought the new missal "is a good thing", this may suggest as much about possibly new demographics of Catholic worshipers as about anything else. Or, as Claire suggests, perhaps worshipers are not listening. Maybe, too, they have "tuned out"???
dont understand. Are you saying that a survey is true, or scientific, when it rings true?
No, I meant that claims of generalizability are frought with difficulty. We can be embroiled in a lot of methodological issues as a result. I am not saying that this is not important. Very few studies claim generalizability for this reason. You select your representative sample. However, getting results, for a variety of reasons is not always possible. And even if you do, there is often criticism of the way questions are asked, etc.I think, in this instance, what occurred is appropriate. Publish your results, the sample, respondents and results and let other make inferences around the reliability of the survey in terms of how accurate it is.One way to do that, is to hold a focus group (even a virtual one) like is being held here on this site and maybe even on conservative sites. If you don't hear people saying, gee that seems counter-intuitive to what I experience, then there may indeed be a problem. If you hear people, like Fr. K, surprised that so many like the translation and other priests criticizing specific selections, then you can conclude, I think, that the results are fairly reliable and accurate.I am not saying true or accurate or valid in a social science sense but accurate, true and reliable in terms of assessing clergy's general view of the missal.The point is that the leadership of whoever is responsible for the translation and promulgation is going to have to do some re(thinking) or at least respond in some fashion. Maybe it is just an issue of people getting used to it, maybe it is an issue of difficulty with change, maybe it is an issue with the translation itself or all of the above.At any rate, I don't think that attacking the methodology of the survey or calling it into question is really and honest response. I think, instead, acknowledging that, not withstanding whatever methodological issues you may have, it is more or less an accurate reflection.It is a judgement of the data as presented.
"The new translation is not good. What does it mean that lay Catholics mostly find that the new translation is good? It reveals that theyre not listening. That may be the takeaway message. Of course, at some level we knew that"Right. It may also reveal that the laity view the text of the mass differently than liturgical or linguistics specialists. It may also reveal that some of the objections to the new missal are overblown. That collect for this coming Sunday that I typed into a comment above - it may not be Shakespeare, and it may not be 100% theologically sound, but really, for someone with a reasonable command of English* it's not insurmountably difficult to read or understand - or speak. To be sure, it requires more effort and concentration than the previous version, which was broken up into shorter, simpler sentences. So the new translation is harder. Still, my observation is that it almost always comes off without a hitch.* Quite a few priests in the US have a fairly tenuous grasp of English, and the long and complex sentences in the new translation do them no favors. We have a guy whose first language is Spanish; and I've noticed that there are some texts that pair "inheritance" and "heirs". What to do with the "h" in that pair of words gives him trouble.
George D,I still don't understand. Why bother making the survey? Wouldn't focus groups be easier? And if they are the criterion by which you judge surveys, more accurate?
I realize that we are moving on two tracks here: the survey itself and the collect for Trinity Sunday.The thread on the "Pray Tell" site (linked by Jim) has an interesting discussion. In the course of which the translation that was made in 1998 and did not receive Roman approval is given:"God our Father,you revealed the wonderful mystery of the Godheadby sending into the worldthe Word who speaks all truthand the Spirit who makes us holy.Grant that we may proclaim the fullness of faithby acknowledging and worshippingthree Persons, eternal in glory,one God of majesty and power."
Fr. Imbelli, now after living with the new translation for some time, I certainly find the full stop in the middle of the prayer jarring.
Its not accurate to say that the laity who approve of the translation of the new Roman Missal are simply not listening. I heard Anthony Esolen, a professor of English at Providence College, deliver a talk on the new translation in December of 2011 just before the changes were to take effect in parishes. Dr. Esolen, who has translated Dantes "Divine Comedy", Lucretius "De rerum natura", and Torquato Tassos "Gerusalemme liberata", vigorously endorsed the textual changes in the liturgy. Here is Esolen speaking about the new Missal in First Things:http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/11/restoring-the-words
"The real question to be pondered is why they havent done exactly that."Susan: one could offer any number of answers to your question but most likely no bishops want to appear to be unhappy with or even questioning the translations imposed on them and us by Their Ecclesiastical Betters.As far as dealing with the US bishops specifically: when's the last time you have seen or heard any of them speaking up (before retirement, that is) and challenging ANYTHING that emenates from the Vatican? In that respect, the European bishops are light-years ahead of their US brethren.
"As for the first point, do you mean that the Church is so different in different dioceses that her priests think differently about things as basic as the missal? I find that to be a stretch."Tom: I suspect in dioceses such as Rockford, Lincoln and Arlington, the priests may be VERY different in this respect than their counterparts in the rest of the US.But I still agree with you in principle regarding your comments to Wasting Time.
" ... perhaps worshipers are not listening. Maybe, too, they have tuned outReminds me of when I was a kid in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Btw, I see that Rita's post has made the Real Clear Religion list today - congratulations to Rita and dotCom. And Luke has a piece on the Boston Archdiocese that was listed yesterday - congrats, Luke and Commonweal.
Bernard,thank you for the recommendation. I had read the talk, but seeing him gives it an added dimension. As you say, a 38 minutes well spent.
The new translation is going fine in our parish; California San Joaquin valley. The priests do well with it and I have not heard anyone comment that they dislike it.
I concur with Jim's kudos to Luke Hill for his piece on the Boston archdiocese.
Kathy:The survey can capture information from a wider range of participants than focus groups. Additionally, responses can be quantified and correlations drawn between degree of satisfaction with the translation and age, region, religious order affiliation, etc.Due to the return rate some of these may not be available or it may have been an issue with distribution. A survey can quantify and capture a larger sample. Ethically, all one should do is report the findings accurately and completely.The value of focus groups is that they can add a useful qualitative component to the quantitative findings. So, for example, we read this survey and Rita reported that "59% of priests do not like the new translation, compared with 39% who do. An overwhelming 80% agree that some of the language is awkward and distracting. 61% think the translation needs urgently to be revised. In what is perhaps the most timely element, 61% of priests do not want the rest of the liturgical books to be translated in the same manner".This prompted the discussion on this post and people (clergy) forwarded specific examples of awkward and distracting translations. This is not possible in a survey format but is in a smaller open ended focus group format.
George D,Do you think participants on the Commonweal blog are representative of American Catholics as a whole?
Kathy:No, it is obviously a more informed and educated (in the sense of actively engaged) than most North American Catholics.As was said one time in one thread some time ago, liturgy is probably the only thing that is more controversial than sex in Catholic circles. I think most American Catholics would agree. A common experience of most Catholics leaving mass is commenting on the drive home on quality of the mass, whether that is the homily, the music, whatever. Everyone is a critic!!!But I think that the clergy and religious representation is probably accurate. The survey revealed that 70% were unhappy with the translation. But, who knows, that would probably still be the case if the angel Gabriel whispered the translation to the committee!!!
Leaving doctrine aside, I think some of the prayer's linguistic perplexities originate in the Latin and are only carried forward, perhaps slightly worsened, in translation.Look at this line: et Unitatem adorare in potentia maiestatis. From the perspective of a person in a pew, or even of the celebrant, what does "to adore Unity" mean? It sounds more Pythagorean than Christian. No doubt the author wanted to balance Unity and Trinity in a prayer on Trinity Sunday, but the object of adoration is the One God, not a numerical abstraction, and it would be easier on everyone if the prayer said so. That would also automatically fix the "your" problem in English.When the Latin was first written, earthly monarchs wielded real power and inspired awe. The "power of majesty" meant something then that it no longer means. Anyway, the Trinity is being celebrated on this day, not divine omnipotence. The phrase looks like something tacked on just to fill out the line.Lastly, in admirabile mysterium tuum hominibus declarasti, the verb declarasti, which means to make clear or manifest, seems an odd word to use in connection with a doctrine that the wisest heads in Christendom have always told us cannot be made clear or manifest. In this case, the English is actually a slight improvement, being less assertive.
John Prior, Thank you. My incoherent mutterings have been rendered into intelligent words by someone who knows whereof he speaks. Especially, thank you for "something tacked on just to fill out the line." I have suspected Latin of having a lot of that sort of thing ever since my decades-ago bouts with the ever "pius Aeneas." Thanks for it all.
Some readers might be interested to know that a major study of the composition of the orations after the Council is coming out this summer, Dr. Lauren Pristas' Collects of the Roman Missals: A Comparative Study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council.
Kathy,Am I correct?: this has nothing to do with vernacular translations but with the composition of the Latin collects for the Missal of Paul VI and the changes from the previous Missal (I believe issued under John XXIII).
One more time. Why should the English-language liturgical texts be translations from some other language (Latin, Greek, Urdu)? There is no "sacred" language. Yes, there is a Latin Rite tradition that provides guidance. But the guidance it provides is in HOW it expresses what it says, not in the fact that it is Latin. As there is some stylistically good English and some stylistically poor English, so too is there some stylistically good Latin and some stylistically poor Latin.But the main point is that there is no sacred language. Just some "sacred cows."
"But the guidance it provides is in HOW it expresses what it says"Bernard, does not the guidance include WHAT it says: the content of the mystery of the faith?
Here is the collect as it appeared in the Roman Missal before the Council:
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,qui dedisti famulis tuis, in confessione verae fidei,aeternae Trinitatis gloriam agnoscere,et in potentia maiestatis adorare Unitatem:quaesumus; ut, eiusdem fidei firmitate, ab omnibus semper muniamur adversis.Almighty and everlasting God,who have given your servants graceby the confession of the true faithto acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinityand to worship the Unity in all its power and majesty,grant that by steadfastness in the same faithwe may be kept safe from all adversities.
And here is the translation from the Book of Common Prayer:
ALMIGHTYE and everlastyng God, whiche haste geven unto us thy servauntes grace by the confession of a true fayth to acknowlege the glorye of the eternall trinitie, and in the power of the divyne majestie to wurshippe the unitie: we beseche thee, that through the stedfastnes of thys fayth, me may evermore be defended from all adversitie, whiche liveste and reignest, one God, worlde without end.
Fr. Imbelli, yes, that is correct. Dr. Pristas' research along these lines has been published in the Thomist, Communio, et al.
Fr. K. has shown, I believe, that "Worship the unity" is in fact the liturgical prayer. Since that's challenging, to me anyways, what do I do with the challenge? Am I right? Is the prayer right? Who should be learning from whom?
Fr. Imbelli,Two comments.First, please look at both the English and the Latin of the Collect Fr. Komonchak has cited above. Then look at the English version of the Collect and Prayer after Communion for Pentecost. I don't have the Latin for these. Note the clarity and simplicity of the former and the fussiness and wordiness of the latter. I grant that not all the orations are as bad as these Pentecost ones are, but many, many of them, are anything but elegant.Second, and more to the point. You ask: "Does not the guidance [to be gotten from the tradition of Latin Rite liturgical texts] include WHAT it says: the content of the mystery of faith?"Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: But that guidance is not tied to the Latin language as a language. I'm confident that when you and other competent people teach and preach here in the U. S. you do not feel the need to produce a Latin text which you proceed to translate into English before delivering it. There is no loss of the content of the faith because you don't start with a Latin text. Why then insist that liturgical texts have to start with a Latin version? Frankly, I can conjure up some lousy reasons for the treatment of Latin as a sacred language. I can't come up with any good ones for doing so. Sacred cows are expensive to maintain.
Mr. D.,we may be communicating past one another.I'm not sure of your first point. I agree that the English translation of the pre-conciliar collect for Trinity Sunday reads much more clearly than the present collect for Pentecost. But what does that say other than that the first translation, as translation, is superior in style to the second -- a point with which I agree. Am I missing something?With regard point two: I am not maintaining that Latin is "sacred" (whether language or cow), only that the Latin prayers are the carriers of the West's liturgical tradition. Must they not then be the starting point of our translation of the liturgy? -- not because they are in Latin and Latin is sacred, but because the Latin collects etc. bear the heritage of the faith passed down from our ancestors. If your point here is that we ought to create new collects, prayers after communion etc., not dependent on previous models in a literal sense, then that opens (at least to my mind) a different field of discussion.
Mr. D.,I think we are understanding one another. But I presume you meant to write "shouldn't" in the second sentence above.
As an aside: it appears that several comments have disappeared in what I assume was the cut-over from the old blog software to the new blog software.
To our collection of alternative translations, this one is the one that was composed by the current ICEL and approved by the English-speaking bishops in 2008, who sent it to Rome for the recognitio, apparently with the impression that this is the text that would actually end up in the missal we're using today (but Rome reworked it):
God our Father,
by sending into the world the Word of truth
and the Spirit of sanctification
you made known to humankind your awesome mystery;
grant us, in professing the true faith,
to acknowledge the Trinity of eternal glory,
and adore the Unity, powerful in majesty.
(Thanks to Jonathan Day on the Pray Tell blog for providing this text.)
Speaking of individual revisions, I am so grateful for the priest who says, "For us... and for our salvation..." There is no discernible sound for "men" that I can hear from him, though the congregation says it.
One appreciative experience when visiting my daughter for Easter: I joined her at her Episcopal church where grandson is in the choir. They used the prior text we Catholics have lost. I failed to appreciate how much I miss "one in being with the Father" etc. until I heard all those responses again.
And a woman was even on the altar. No wonder there is a coterie of former Catholics there. Sniff.
The "men" in the creed refers to mankind (emphasizing the sacrifice of a divine being for mere man), not to the male sex, right?
How about using "women" to refer to humankind? If not, why not?
The ECUSA may have lost the few, the proud and the grumpy to the Orneryariate, but the RCC in the US has lost scads of people to the ECUSA, particularly women and now married priests.
Methinks that the exchange has been heavily in favor of the ECUSA.
Style. Do we fault Jesus for saying man does not live by bread alone? Do we think he implied that women can?
The word in Greek is "ho anthropos", which like "homines" in the Creed, refers to humanity not to man or men (which would be "ho andros" and "viri" respectively). Hence the NRSV translates it as follows: "One does not live by bread alone."
The word in Greek is "ho anthropos", which like "homines" in the Creed, refers to humanity not to man or men (which would be "ho andros" and "viri" respectively). Hence the NRSV translates it as follows: "One does not live by bread alone."
The word in Greek is "ho anthropos", which like "homines" in the Creed, refers to humanity not to man or men (which would be "ho andros" and "viri" respectively). Hence the NRSV translates it as follows: "One does not live by bread alone."
Msgr Bruce Harbert has picked up Kathy's defense of the mistranslated collect:
"Since very early times, there has been a strong contrast between the trinitarian theology of East and West, the East focussing more on the threeness of Persons and the West on the oneness of God. The western insertion of the 'filioque' in the Creed is a symptom of this, and a major cause of division. The western emphasis has led theologians to stress abstract speculation about the immanent Trinity at the expense of reflection on the Trinity's revelation in history. At its best – in Augustine and Aquinas – this is magnificent. But it can degenerate into excessive abstraction.
The liturgical texts of the Roman Rite exemplify this western tendency – just look at the quantity of abstract nouns that they contain.
Many theologians have felt that the West needs to learn from the East in order to develop a more balanced presentation of trinitarian theology so that, as John Paul II said, the Church can breathe with both her lungs.
These are the considerations that, I would suggest, led to the revision of the Trinity Sunday Collect."
This sheds interesting light on the theological incompetence of the new translators. http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2013/05/20/collect-for-the-most-holy-trinity/
Joseph-- I do not take issue with your Greek, I take issue with your English, and the meaing of man/men. "One does not live by bread alone" is no different than "Man does not live by bread alone." "For us men and for our salvation" is no different than "For us men and women (and children?) and for our salvation," except that it's infinitely less clunky, hence closer to God.
Yes, you may dislike inclusive language, and I certainly dislike the distortions it has created in the NSRV; but you should not invoke Jesus as an authority, because we have his sayings only in Greek and the problem does not arise, at least in the text you quoted. Masculine pronouns attached to anthropos might be argued to be non-inclusive, but that would be to forget the difference between grammatical and biological gender; in any case feminine gender often attaches to male persons in languages with grammatical genders, as when Christ as "la victime du Calvaire" is called "Elle". Christ calls himself the Truth and the Life in John 14:6, both nouns are feminine.
Off topic, this story confirms what I have said a million times: beware of antipedophile witchhunts: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324482504578453363318730182.html
When you say that "feminine gender often attaches to male persons in languages with grammatical genders," you are making my point. If I've made anything clear it's that I love inclusive language expressed elegantly, such as "man" or when the Church is referred to as the "bride" of Christ.
What I dislike are childish responses to such inclusive language.
" it may not be Shakespeare, and it may not be 100% theologically sound "
Shakespeare I can live with or without. But theological soundness ....?
Is "OK theology" a gift of slavishness to the original Latin?
And if the arbiters of style were women rather than men .....


text:
STAR WARS: Across the Galaxy: Chapter 1 and 2 (Edited Version)
Love is a gift. Love has always been used as the sole cure to hate, anger, and destruction. It's warmth could send fear through cold, send chills up the spine of evil. Love, much like a flower, would bloom only if given the chance, only if love was shown to it, only if given sunlight would it's pedals open to reveal its beauty....
We are haunted by the vastness of our souls. Its existence only known when in love, or in pain. Our souls bare many gifts, and much heartache. It's light and warmth can, if given the chance, light up our dark world. Like the star's across the heavens, it can light the path ahead. If misunderstood or worse, corrupted, our souls can be such as a dragon, devouring all it's eye sees, as it's crimson eye see's all.
A long time ago in a galaxy, far far away.....
Across the Stars
By McClure777.
She stared across the stars, feeling her heart pulse. She stood on a high mountain, one of the many that covered the the landscape of Dantooine.
Zelka Hood stood at 5'9, her height seeming to crumble compared to the vast valley she saw before her. Her fair complexion seemed to shine in Dantooine's morning light. Her crimson hair glimmered in the morning light with highlights of blond, her emerald green eyes filled with tears as she recalled her past, remembering that horrible day. She looked down at the near by valley and remembered her son, her son who so long ago played in the Valley. The countless river's spread across the valley, like paint running uncontrolled across a canvas, they seemed to wield to the brown and dying soil results of the planet's devastation. It seemed as if only yesterday she and her son William would play in these rivers, catching fish and swimming, giggling and laughing, allowing them for a brief time to escape the wrath of the Empire.
The Empire, the former hero's of the galaxy, once the defenders of peace, had come and destroyed everything. They started with the few forests, burning them to the ground, using them as fuel for their war on freedom. They continued with the lakes and rivers scattered across the simple world, draining their water, and burying the countless dead in the sullied river beds. So many thought it would end, that all the death and suffering would soon vanish. Wishing the Empire would return to it's own place of darkness, allowing the light to return and cast aside the darkness. Possibly, a hero would rise and defeat evil, a hero to rise up and lead freedom's fight. They were all, deceived.
Zelka remembered holding her crying babe in her arms, running from the rain's of fire that were being shot down from the heavens. The Imperial's fleet were bombarding the planet into slag, her home, her family into nothing more then empty remains. She continued to run until she reached the transports, the few that the Rebel Alliance could get past the Imperial fleet. She made a deal with a rebel soldier, allowing her husband, Forson, and her son, William, to escape.
"Forson, you have to leave, there's no time!"
She shouted to her husband. Over the screech's of the wounded, over the deafening roar of the Imperial's turbo lasers, she heard her son cry. Only three months old, and already witness as countless others, to the wrath of the Emperor.
"I won't leave you!" Forson shouted.
Tears rolling down her cheeks, she watched as Rebellion soldiers attempted to push him into the transport, the ramp was closing quickly. She grabbed him and pointed to William,
"Think of our son, our baby boy, do it for him Forson."
He looked down at the baby as he shed more tears,
"I will always love you Zel."
Before Forson ran onto the transport she had grabbed his head with both hands and kissed him, fearing she would not see them again. Their passionate kiss seemed to echo across eternity, their undying love, splitting apart, being thrown across the galaxy. Turbo lasers hit all around them, massive explosions roared across Dantooine, burning their home, their lives, as they continued to kiss, for it would be the very last time, they would ever feel each others love, again. As they parted, as she watched the scorched transport fly into the night sky, she watched as it as her hope, her love, her life flew into the night sky, and vanish into the vastness of the galaxy.
Chapter One
War was a disease, a disease that the galaxy has no cure. War's plagued the galaxy, swallowing it whole, spreading its destruction to countless worlds, worlds like Dantooine.
William Quinn reached out and flicked the starter switches for the X-wing's engines.
"Blue One this is Blue Two, all systems are go and we are prepared to launch, on your orders sir."
"Roger that Blue Two." said William.
All around him in the cockpit the various switches and display monitors hummed to life with a roar from the engines. Red flares ignited, shooting out bursts of flame as the X-wing started to hover above the ground. Several tech officers ran off and started signaling him to head towards the glowing azure force field at the end of the the large dome hanger. Danzer Koore, his Wookie wingman roared into the voice comm., making William flinch from the startling noise.
"Roger that Dan old' buddy, try not to get yourself killed today."
Danzer was a wookie who swore something called a Wookie life debt to William after he, along with a rebel task force, freed Danzer's tribe from Imperial slavers several years ago. Unable to convince Danzer of any other alternative, William accepted the creature's life debt and enlisted him into the Rebel Academy. Several years later they had become close friends. Because of their excellent flying skills they were appointed to Blue Squadron of the Corrovet "Harbor's sword." There were only four pilots in this squadron; a jade colored Rodian named Farfel Ope, Farfel has a distinguished flight record, containing mostly kills rather then efficiency, his nickname "Laser brains" came from his friends and fellow pilots at the academy. The fourth pilot in the squad was Kyle Mona, a Corellian human with dark skin and a shaved head. He was enlisted by the Empire forcefully at the time of the Death Dtar's destruction, he deserted and joined the rebellion in an attempt to help free his world from the corruption of the Empire.
"We have go, I repeat we have go." William said.
William pushed forward on the control stick of his fighter and with a loud roar from his engines the fighter bolted towards the azure force field, without a sound, the Fighter passed through the field and into the vacuum of space. One after another the rest of Blue Squad followed him out of the Corrovet's hanger bay, forming up with him in a triangular formation.
"Alright guys the mission is simple, cover the medical transports and make sure they enter the planet with out receiving damage." said William.
"Roger that Blue One."
"Not a problem."
The chorus from his squadron assured him, knowing he had a group of able pilots behind him, always assured him that the job would always get done. The squadron sped towards the large planet of Dantooine. Its brown mountains and fields covered most of the farming world with bits of green and blue scattered across the planet.
"What a dump, there's no water any where!" said Kyle.
William laughed, "Little home sick are we Kyle?" He replied.
Corellia was a world with many oceans, its vast sapphire oceans covered most of the planet as did the oceans on many of the worlds in that system.
"You bet I am, what loyal son of Corellia wouldn't be?"
Kyle sighed, "the golden beach's, The towering skyscrapers, the Corellian ale."
"You forgot all the Corellian woman." Said William.
Kyle laughed, "Eh, I prefer the sand and tides of the oceans then to a woman."
"What?" Farfel spoke up, his high pitched voice seemed to screech across the comm.,
"You never had a girl in mind when at home Kyle?" Kyle chuckled, "Why?" He then laughed, "Might as well just find a woman I'll hate in five months and give her half my money."
Laughter filled the voice comm.,
"Alright settle down, we'll be reaching the rendezvous point in three minutes." said William.
They made their way to a large area of debris, destroyed ships, most of them seeming to be rebellion vessels.
"Wow, who made the graveyard?" Said Farfel.
"No doubt the Imperials, they make a living off destruction." Said Kyle darkly.
Kyle's hatred and bitterness filled his voice every time he referred to them, it was quite inspiring to any rebel freedom fighter.
"They just take and take, then destroy what's left." said Kyle.
A single beep came from each of their display monitors as several text's stretched across the screen.
"The supply convoy is coming in, get ready to move fast, Imperials could be anywhere." Said William.
"Watch your scanners." Said Farfel.
Three large Vessels popped out of hyperspace maybe one hundred meters away from Blue Squadron's location. One of the vessels was a Mon Calamari cruiser stripped clean of its guns to provide more hull space for supplies, the other two were smaller vessels which William did not recognize.
"What are those things?" He asked.
Farfel responded, "They're called MC30c frigates."
William blinked, "MC what's?"
Farfel chuckled, "The fish's like to name all their vessels through the galactic numerical system to distinguish their ships."
William understood that although his own home of Coruscant gave nearly all of their vessels and fighters names instead of numbers.
"They're rather large to be supply vessels don't you think?" Said Kyle sarcastically.
A loud roar bellowed into the comm. as Danzer spoke up.
"Any one catch that?" Farfel asked with a chuckle.
William replied, "He said that the rebellion doesn't have enough vessels in the fleet, they have to use any thing they can so all of the fleet's needs are met."
"Makes sense, half the time I wonder how we even get enough funding for the fuel for these fighters." Said Farfel bitterly.
The MC30's shot off towards the planet quickly, without sending a transmission to William.
"Are we suppose to follow directly or keep a distance?" Asked Kyle.
"I have no idea."
William pressed a large green key on his control panel and spoke clearly.
"This is Blue One of Blue Squadron, what are our current orders."
No reply came from the vessels as they continued to speed with all haste towards the planet.
"I repeat, this is Blue One of..."
He was cut off as a rough voice came through the comm.,
"This is Captain Keen of the Cruiser "Gohardar."
"Captain." William responded politely.
"Your orders are to stay with us directly, keep close, we have received information that the Imperials are heading this way, we have to get these supply's planet side at once!"
William quickly responded, "Understood sir, Blue Squadron on route."
He switched off the intercom connected to Gohardar and switched it back to squadron.
"We have our orders, we're to escort the convoy to Dantooine, the Imperials may be on their way so let's not waste any time!"
Without another word Blue Squadron raced off to catch up with the convoy.
"Sir!" Kyle yelled out over the comm.,
"An Imperial Frigate has just entered the system, TIE's are heading our way!"
William turned his head around to see a dozen TIE fighters and several Interceptors heading their way.
"All wings to S-Foils and attack position, lets dust these Imperials!" said William.
"Break off!"
They scattered as the TIE's flew past them, thousands of lime colored lasers ripped past them, the familiar screech of the fighters pained William's ears. William pulled back hard on his control stick and did a cart wheel to avoid several streams of lasers, as he reached 180 degrees he pushed back down hard, speeding towards two Imperial fighters, Let's play chicken boys. The two TIE's continued to speed towards him. Well they certainly aren't cowards. He continued to speed up then abruptly pulled up, shooting off two heat seeking proton torpedoes, the Imperials could not pull out in time and the missiles hit each one directly in the spherical cockpits. The Hexagonal solar panels snapped off and spun sideways while the engines exploded into expanding balls of fire.
"Nice shot Blue one!" roared Kyle.
William smiled as he sped off to engage another fighter pair.
"This is Blue Three!" yelled Farfel. "I can't, shake these damn fighters off of me!"
William looked to his left to see Farfel's X-wing spinning and turning in attempts to shake twoTIE interceptors close on his tail.
"I'm coming Three!"
William turned with great focus toward the two fighters that were persuing Farfel, he kicked his engines into full throttle and sped towards the interceptors.
"Help, I can't take much more damage!" Farfel screamed.
"Hold on Three I'm coming!" William said soothingly.
William angled his fighter directly behind the two interceptors, at 2 clicks the head's up display appeared with a yellow box around the two fighters. After several seconds of maneuvering the box went green the fighter's image locked into the targeting cross, he fired three streams of lasers at each fighter, hitting directly in the spherical cockpits.
"Yeah!" William yelled in triumph.
A shaky voice came over the comm., "Thanks William, I thought I was gone for sure." said Farfel.
William grinned, "You should know me better by now Three, I never let my squadron go like that!"
They formed up side by side and swept through several other fighters to regroup with the others.
"I think we've gotten just about all of the Imperials boss." said Kyle happily.
William smiled to himself, not afraid to show that he was very happy, they had just beaten terrible odds! William heard distant screeching and looked towards the sound, with a strike of pure horror he saw nearly a dozen TIE bombers speeding towards the convoy.
"All Blue's, to me!"
He pushed down hard on his control stick and blasted towards the bombers who drew ever closer to the convoy, Danzer caught up with him and stayed several clicks to his right, he gave a loud roar of encouragement.
"You two go, we'll clean up here!" Kyle shouted as he blasted two more TIE fighters.
"Roger that Four, good luck." said William.
"Save the luck for yourself boss, you'll need it more then we do!"
William and Danzer continued to speed towards the bombers until two interceptors caught up with them.
Danzer roared telling William to keep moving. He pulled back to attack the Imperial fighters. They were running out of time.
William shouted to his astromech, "Willie, try to see if you can boost power to the engines, if you can take the power from the shields!"
The atromech whistled and beeped in astonishment arguing the matter.
" I don't care Willie, just do it!"
The Atromech cursed at him several times in his beeping and whistling and completed his orders, the attempt worked and William's speed was far greater then the Imperials.
"Your going in too fast boss!" shouted Kyle.
"You wont be able to shoot them down before you ram into them!"
William chuckled, "Watch and learn Three."
William continued to speed towards the bombers, just as he was about to ram them he shouted,
"Willie cut all the power from the engines!"
"What!?" Shouted Kyle in astonishment.
Willie did so which caused immediate failure through out the fighter. Williams only chance was for his weapons to stay intact. He prayed as he pressed down on his control, it failed to fire.
"Come on!" Shouted William out loud.
He pressed down on the control's harder, pushing repeatedly.
"The bombers are getting away!" Shouted Kyle.
"They're going to catch up to the convoy!"
William glared at the bombers with a newly found sense of determination.
"Like hell they are." said William.
He pressed down one last time, it fired! Stream after stream of red lasers shot out from his four guns, William cheered loudly,
"Yeah!" One after another the bombers exploded into balls of fire, William shot the last bomber down and shot through the explosion.
"You did it!" Kyle cheered.
"Way to go one!" yelled Farfel.
Danzer roared in triumph as the sounds of fists hitting his chest came through the comm.
"Alright guys?" William asked as he sat in his cockpit, sweat flowing down his face, unable to move or do anything with no power to 95% of his ship.
"All good here boss, happy to say all fighters have been destroyed and the Imperial frigate seems to be prepping for a jump to hyperspace."
"Good, is the convoy alright?" He asked. "Did they make it?"
Farfel answered happily, "They sure did One, their supply's will save many lives down there, thanks to us."
"Alright, head back to the sword."
"Yes sir." said Kyle.
"Oh and one other thing." Said William.
"Yeah boss?" William chuckled, "Tell them to send a rescue team for me."
Chapter Two
Zelka awoke from a deep sleep. She would rarely do that, just abruptly wake from a deep sleep. She would get little sleep, few of the freedom fighters would. Battles and chaos would inevitably wake them. She slowly rose from her battered bed, threw off the torn graying sheets, stood, and rushed over to a small crack in her room's half destroyed wall. She peered out, to look for some form of warfare, an explosion, a firefight, anything. She saw nothing but the mist blanketed night. She sighed, rubbing her forehead trying to remove the headache as if it was unwanted dirt. She would nearly every night, have nightmares about the day she last saw her family, she would dream about more then just that fateful day. She still had memories of long ago, memories of playing with her boy William, feeling the touch of her husband, Forson, and even memories of just sitting, being with her family. She would give anything to see them once more, to feel their heart's beating close to hers, to feel their love, which has been gone from her dark life, for so long. She was drawn away from her grief as she heard a loud knock rapt against her door. She walked over to open the crumbling door. The door opened before she could respond. She saw through dim light, a tall red headed woman standing before her, breathing heavily.
"Ma'am." She said.
Zelka smiled at the figure and said, "Hello."
"I'm sorry for bothering you ma'am but,"
"Don't be silly, i am not bothered in the slightest."
The redheaded girl returned the smile warmly.
"Oh good, the general is always saying I am too, intrusive."
Zelka, standing in nothing but her undergarments chuckled.
"Oh, what ever would make him think that I wonder?"
The girl blushed and turned to leave.
"I'll wait for you outside, then, shall I?"
"That's for the best I think."
The door quickly shut, leaving the room once again in darkness, with only shards of light poking through the cracks of the walls for light. Zelka strode over to her battered dresser, opened it's dark brown doors, and saw three sets of outfits. The first; was a battered shirt, and shorts, the second; her military uniform, the third; was was a robe. She grabbed the
dark blue military uniform and quickly put it on. She searched for several moments for her boots, finding them under the bed. Like the rest of her uniform the boots were badly damaged from all the action they've seen throughout the years. The Corellian made boots were torn in several spots. The hidden blades on the nose of each boot, were somewhat showing as well. She opened the door to see the girl standing outside, she saluted and said,
Zelka smiled, "No need for that girl, I'm no officer, just another grunt, like you.
The girl smiled and eased her body language.
"Oh, well forgive me for my lack of respect but, it gets really tiring sucking up to the ranks!"
Zelka laughed, "Tell me about it kid, you've only been in the military for what, two years?"
The girl glared.
"I'm seventeen, and I've been in the fight for nearly four years!"
Zelka faked a look of astonishment.
"Oh wow, four years, I had no idea i was talking to a veteran."
"Oh very funny." said the girl.
They made their way through the battered halls of the hidden freedom fighter base.
"So, what's your name girl?" said Zelka.
The girl stopped and shook Zelka's hand.
"Name's Soul."
Zelka blinked then chuckled, "Soul?"
Soul glared at her, "Yeah, got a problem with that?"
Zelka smiled, "Hey, what ever you fancy is fine by me, just thought you would have a sir name that's all.
" Soul nodded, "I never knew either one of my parents, the fighters found me when I was just a kid, when the Empire first came here."
She smiled, "They took me in, gave me a home."
Zelka nodded at her, "heart warming, well what are Rebel's for if not to help it's own cause."
Zelka rarely discussed her personal beliefs with anyone, but it was no secret that she argued with the military counsel regularly.
"Yeah, I hear you don't like what has been happening lately."
Soul seemed to pry around Zelka's mental barriers, trying to find out what she was thinking, feeling past her unreadable exterior.
"Just disagreements that's all." said Zelka.
Soul Scoffed, "You almost brawled with Captain Anlu!"
"Ah, a sticky subject. Well, you don't know the whole picture now do you?" said Zelka.
Soul laughed, "How much more picture do I need other then a tough redheaded woman kicking the snot out of a little Rodian?!"
Zelka chuckled, "Point taken, but he deserved no less for his idiot plan."
Captain Anlu nearly three weeks ago attempted to force his plan on the military council. His plan was to send nearly 57% of the freedom soldiers to the front lines, sending them to sure death. The base of his plan was to assault an Imperial forward base, in which, taking it would insure that the Imperials would have no staging ground for further assaults in that region. This giving the rebels more time to prepare hit-and-run plans. Zelka argued and ultimately defeated the plan. Zelka explained that the Imperials would be expecting such a futile attempt such as, striking their base of operations. The Imperials would surely have a trap waiting for a bulk force. Only 10% of their force would survive, if that.
"Yeah, I'm sure you saved a lot of lives Zel, I'm sure of it." said Soul.
Zelka flinched at the nickname Zel, for it was her husband that last spoke it.
Soul noticed her expression and said, "I'm sorry, I know we just met, I shouldn't be giving you a nickname."
Zelka smiled at her, shaking off her heartache.
"No, no of course not, it's not that, it's just," She sighed, "Bad memories."
Soul nodded at her. Zelka had not heard her nickname Zel spoken aloud in over two decades, not since she last saw her husband. The very thought of that night still haunts her to this day. Zelka thinks of her emotions as a creature, a dragon no less, stalking her, crawling into her mind and feeding on her fears. She pictures herself as a castle, a castle preparing for the dragon's inevitable assault, but no matter how much she prepares, no matter how much defense's she puts around her heart and mind, the dragon always slips through. She can almost hear the dragon, calling out to her in the middle of the night, begging her to relive her worst memories, pleading for her to give in to her pain, trying with all its power to submit to its evil.
She pulled out her flask from her jacket pocket and drunk heavily, swallowing the Dantooine ale as fast as she could manage. There were only three things that made the pain go away; one was to kill Imperials, make them suffer as much as she has over the setting of twenty years, two was to imagine being with her family again, three was to drink so much, as if an attempt to wash down the pain.
"Criff, think you drunk enough of that garbage yet?" Soul asked astonished as she looked at Zelka.
Zelka put away her flask and winked and Soul,
"When you can drink like a warrior, you won't be amazed at how much we can drink."
Soul scoffed, "Drinking more like a bantha if you ask me, a bantha that just got shot ."
Zelka smiled, knowing her joke was to the medical community, for which used Dantooine Ale for many battlefield wounds. The ale was the strongest in multiple regions, one of the strongest in the known galaxy, going down faster then any species' metabolism could burn the ale.
"You don't drink Soul?"
Soul gave Zelka a grim look, "I wouldn't touch the stuff, alcohol is evil, it can change even the best person into a animal."
Zelka shrugged, "Better a happy animal then one with nothing to drink."
Part Two of Chapter two coming soon.
I hope every one enjoys the edited version of Chapter's 1 and 2. The second part of Chapter 2 will be arriving shortly.
May the Force be with you :)
read and enjoyed. Thank you for listening
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2015 - All rights reserved.


text:
My ADHD Design Has Come Full Circle (that is a good thing!)
Holidays always throw me off. Lets pretend today is actually Monday, that way when its Friday it will be like finding $20 in your coat pocket…
I feel like at least once a week I start off a post with "If you've read Vintage Revivals for a while…." and if I haven't guilted you into it yet, you should know that is LITERALLY one of the biggest downfalls that I have, I assume that you guys know everything Vintage Revivals (even though in all reality I know that you don't) So there is that tangent for you…back to the point.
I have been learning and DIYing my way from complete nothingness (I was a spray paint virgin when I started the blog, if you can believe that!) I LOVE learning new things and don't love repeating projects/colors etc. because its just so much more exciting to try something new!! So that is what I have done for the last 2.5 years. I have fought to try new crap on an extreme basis. Extreme to the point that my house has been a bit like a crazy schizophrenic. Each room was its own entity and didn't really tie in to each other except for the fact that I loved them all at some point. I can so clearly see the evolution of my esthetic from room to room, which explains the constant need for change.
But as I am typing this post from my couch something (or should I say some things) make me very happy.
I found this awesome (then brass) chandelier at the DI (Utah's version of Goodwill) for $15.00. And wanted to do SOMETHING amazing.
So I spray painted it purple and hung it in my entryway. For a year and 1/2 it has been the lone purple soldier in the sea of rainbow happiness that my house is becoming.
Now after almost 2 years I have found something to tie my kitchen to my entryway (something I thought might never happen).
On Black Friday Rugs USA was having their infamous 75% off sale and I scored this over dyed electric plum rug for next to nothing. And how about that awesome table? Huh? Tutorial coming soon!!
So basically the whole point of this post is to tell you, that when you are fearlessly discovering your true style, don't be concerned if things feel a little disjointed for a while. As long as you love something it will (eventually) come full circle and you will appreciate it all the more.


text:
There are several claims in the literature that there are no injective groups (with more than one element), but I have not found a proof. For example, Mac Lane claims in his Duality from groups paper in the 1950 Bull. A.M.S. that Baer showed him an elegant proof, but gives no hint of what it might be. Does anyone know of an actual published proof?
The argument in the slides by Maria Nogin (née Voloshina) linked to by a-fortiori in a comment was published as:
Maria Nogin, A short proof of Eilenberg and Moore's theorem, Central European Journal Of Mathematics Volume 5, Number 1 (2007), 201–204. Also available on her homepage.
Added: The above paper was also mentioned in Jonas Meyer's answer to the same question on math.SE. As Steve D. points out in a comment there, the result appears as Exercise 7 on page 9 of D.L. Johnson's Topics in the Theory of Group Presentations, Cambridge University Press 1980:
The argument by Eilenberg and Moore appears on pages 21/22 of Foundations of Relative Homological Algebra, Memoirs of the AMS, Volume 55 (1965). Here's a scan of the relevant passage for the convenience of the readers:
Let $G$ be a non-trivial injective group and $g \in G$ non-trivial. From category theory, $G \times G$ is injective as well. But, now $G \times G$ embeds into a group $H$, where $(g,e)$ and $(e,g)$ are conjugate using an HNN-extension, or just embedding into the group $H:=(G \times G) \rtimes \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$. Since $(g,e)$ and $(e,g)$ are not conjugate in $G \times G$, $H$ cannot split back to $G \times G$. This is a contradiction.
Does this work? I want to use the following statement, which I believe is true.
Let $S$ be an infinite set. Let $\Pi(S)$ be the group of bijections $S\to S$. Let $N$ be the normal subgroup consisting of those bijections whose support is smaller (in cardinality) than $S$. Then every proper normal subgroup of $\Pi(S)$ is contained in $N$.
Now suppose that $G$ is a nontrivial injective group. Certainly it is infinite. Let $S$ be the set of elements of $G$. $S$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $\Pi(S)$. Being injective, it is therefore isomorphic to a quotient of $\Pi(S)$, and is therefore at least as big as $\Pi(S)/N$, which is as big as $2^S$, contradiction.


text:
Given a discrete group G. Is there a nice criterion to decide, whether there is a compact Hausdorff $G$- space X, that contains the discrete space $G$ as a subspace, such that the stabilizer of every point in $X$ is (virtually) cyclic ?
For example the free group admits such a compactification (As well as any hyperbolic group I think). Is it possible to decide, whether $\mathbb{Z}^2$ admits such a compactification? .