Baseball: Well, though it was not the best of outings, Glavine and the Mets did win the game. No harm, no foul, since the Phillies/Braves lost the first two as well. As to the Nationals, they won 3-2, after the Yanks (Mariano overworked, another reliever on the mend) pushed Wang (second great start in a row) one batter too many in the bottom of the Ninth.
It was too bad really that he lost, since he did exactly what the team needed -- an eighth inning effort. Why not piece together a save (after the first batter got on) with the specialists in the bullpen? They are good enough to go an inning between them. Meanwhile, shortly after Glavine became the first 10 game winner in the NL, fellow fortysomething and ultimate journeyman Kenny Rogers did it (much easier with help of the Cubs) in the AL. Oh, the bit player that the Mets got for failed pick-up Matsui had some game -- just what you want from a bench player -- moments of greatness/general decency, not expecting much more.
NYT Watch: There was some interesting articles in the paper today. For some reason, it has so much television material that an article on Star Trek fantasy sorts filming their own stuff was pushed into the main section. My annoyance at the franchise was that it spent so much time on action plots that it did not properly examine the interesting possibilities of how society overall would be so different hundreds of years hence.
I saw all of the original episodes, several of its sequel, and enough of the rest to get a fair idea of their mentality. And, the after awhile tiring plot developments ... though sometimes my suggestion was taken up (e.g., an original series episode dealing with a futuristic mental institution, that suggests things didn't change much) ... suggests a certain lack of creativity. I reckon, only having read a couple of them, the fan fiction goes into more detail.
Also, there was a good piece in the Metro section on an artist who targets burn victims as subjects. The overall message: go ahead stare, especially since this is just art, not the actual person. [On the question of inappropriate handling of "other" people, see here, as well as my comment.] It also had a nice bit by a dad on how he deals with his son. I question the choice to review (NYT Book Review) the first NYT ombudsman collection of columns -- an editor sort (not of the NYT, don't worry) that might be deemed a bit too pro-paper, especially since some were a bit critical of the guy, thinking him not tough enough. Finally, there was a few letters to an editor on a matter that I meant to comment on when it first came out:
New translations of Catholic Mass prayers have been approved by our bishops under Vatican pressure. Many national conferences of bishops, especially noteworthy in the 1998 Synod for Asia, have long sought greater autonomy for local churches. The Japanese bishops decried the demands by Rome that their liturgical books be translated by students in Rome rather than under the bishops themselves in Japan. The Vatican did not yield then, or today in the matter of English translations. It maintains its control, even in such ancillary matters. That priests and lay people, and now the bishops themselves, have no real voice in local matters can only increase the polarization within our church and deter the return of the many who have already been alienated.
-- (Msgr.) Harry J. Byrne
It is not my providence any more to be too concerned with this matter, but is overall disappointing, not only given my past connections to the Church. My mom ... in the midst of making faces at nuns to get back at them since she couldn't talk back to them without being damned to hell ... listened to the Mass in Latin. Though some appreciated the approach (Justice Scalia, according to one account, still goes to one such mass), most seemed to appreciate the move toward the vulgate (common language). The path to new wording for the liturgy is perhaps a nod to those who was upset at the move -- the changes in part are said to reflect a better translation. One that in the various examples supplied don't really have the same flavor:
Latin has been a dead language for centuries. It is more direct and unequivocal at Communion time to say "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you" (current wording) than "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" (new wording). Under what roof, where? Are we inviting someone to our house, or are we receiving Communion?
Another change that seemed a bit off to me: in the Nicene Creed, the opening words "We believe" would become "I believe." This is not just a less easy off the tongue matter (btw "the roof" bit apparently -- according to another letter -- refers to biblical accounts of meetings of believers in houses: the communion ritual arises from actual meals ... meals Paul in one epistle/letter suggested got a bit too out of hand with the wine and such -- think an Irish wake). It is liable to bother some people. The old way suggests a community of believers repeating what they/we all believe. This is more personal. More individual. Anyway, it could not just be sloppy translation -- "we" and "I" are different verb forms. It is a change in focus as much as language.
Given the if anything more conservative pope (don't hear much about him lately, huh?), this change is not too surprising: the concern for loyalty to Latin over language "ingrained in the memories of millions of American parishioners." And, why was it changed? To ensure the Latin was more properly translated? Yeah, that is what we need these days with all the struggles and controversies in the American Church. Top down changes of what the people are familiar and comfortable with, not to modernize the language or anything, but just to satisfy Latin nerds or something. Now, yes, I might be too flippant about all that, but this is what it comes off as.
This is deep down probably a cry for help, if according to the chairman involved, "the most significant liturgical action to come before this body for many years" is this. Priorities people.