The connection between Samhain (pronounced Sah-win) and Halloween is dubious at best. A clear and direct historical connection between Halloween and Samhain has never been proven, yet some scholars and the public believe that the traditions are linked. Lost in the debate is the history of Halloween, which, far from being a pagan event, is actually a Christian celebration that’s almost 1,300 years old. Halloween is a contraction of “All Hallows Eve,” and it designates the vigil of All Hallows Day, more commonly known today as All Saints Day. (“Hallow,” as a noun, is an old English word for saint. As a verb, it means to make something holy or to honor it as holy.) All Saints Day, November 1, is a Holy Day of Obligation, and both the feast and the vigil have been celebrated since the early eighth century, when they were instituted by Pope Gregory III in Rome. (A century later, they were extended to the Church at large by Pope Gregory IV.)
The first attempts to show some connection between the vigil of All Saints and the Celtic harvest festival of Samhain came over a thousand years after All Saints Day became a universal feast, and there’s no evidence whatsoever that Gregory III or Gregory IV was even aware of Samhain.
In Celtic peasant culture, however, elements of the harvest festival survived, even among Christians, just as the Christmas tree owes its origins to pre-Christian Germanic traditions without being a pagan ritual.
The Celtic elements included lighting bonfires, carving turnips (and, in America, pumpkins), and going from house to house, collecting treats, as carolers do at Christmas. But the “occult” aspects of Halloween—ghosts and demons—actually have their roots in Catholic belief. Christians believed that, at certain times of the year (Christmas is another), the veil separating earth from Purgatory, Heaven, and even Hell becomes more thin, and the souls in Purgatory (ghosts) and demons can be more readily seen. Thus the tradition of Halloween costumes owes as much, if not more, to Christian belief as to Celtic tradition.
The current attacks on Halloween aren’t the first. In post-Reformation England, All Saints Day and its vigil were suppressed, and the Celtic peasant customs associated with Halloween were outlawed. Christmas and the traditions surrounding it were similarly attacked, and the Puritan Parliament banned Christmas outright in 1647. In the Northeastern United States, Puritans outlawed the celebration of both Christmas and Halloween, which were revived largely by German Catholic (in the case of Christmas) and Irish Catholic (in the case of Halloween) immigrants in the 19th century.
A new backlash against Halloween by non-Catholic Christians began in the 1980’s, in part because of claims that Halloween was the “Devil’s Night”; in part because of urban legends about poisons and razor blades in Halloween candy; and in part because of an explicit opposition to Catholicism. Jack Chick, a rabidly anti-Catholic fundamentalist who distributes Bible tracts in the form of small comic books, helped lead the charge. By the late 1990’s, even many Catholic parents, unaware of the anti-Catholic origins of the attack on Halloween, had begun to question Halloween as well. Their concerns were elevated when, in 2009, an article from a British tabloid sparked an urban legend that Pope Benedict XVI had warned Catholics against celebrating Halloween. Even though there was no truth to the claim.
Let’s reclaim Halloween for Christians, by returning to its roots in the Catholic Church!
Whether God sends someone to heaven, or hell, or purgatory, or limbo, is not something we as Catholics can easily determine simply by rattling off the decrees of Church councils.
Not every statement from a Council is dogmatic or has the highest level of infallibility. And also every statement needs to be understood in its context, according to the Latin meaning of the words, and with a theological sense of the vocabulary that is used.
The term “hell” in Latin is not always used to signify the pains of the damned or reprobate. There are different levels of hell in medieval Catholic thought, and even limbo itself is described by some authors as the outer edge or entrance area of hell, where people are just slightly in pain, but not being punished like those in the deeper levels of hell. Aquinas did not believe there were “pains” in limbo.
Finally, let me repeat that Catholic dogma has its roots in the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition. Dogma means what is revealed by God, and Catholic dogma is the presentation of what we believe God has clearly revealed in Scripture or Tradition. Although some Catholics like to publish “dogma lists” as if they are mathematical theorems, the Church’s theologians do not see such doctrines in such black and white terms.
The Pope, or a Church General Council may say something that is seen as dogma, or defined as of faith (de fide), but the theological schools at times do not always agree to what extend a saying from a “dogma list” is truly binding as dogma. In the matter of original sin, that teaching is solemnly defined by Church Councils.
And it is clear to the Church that if a person dies without sanctifying grace, in the state of original sin, that they could not enter heaven.
What is not so crystal clear is whether God intervenes in a special or miraculous way to give those who are unbaptized the grace of sanctification, apart from the ritual of water baptism. This has been debated and argued. Some ancient fathers said that the martyrs who died without water baptism were “baptized” with their blood.
Other ancient fathers said that the catechumens who were preparing to become Catholic and died without water baptism were “baptized” with their desire to be Catholic. Apart from blood and desire, are there other circumstances where God “baptizes” a personal spiritually and they receive the grace of sanctification? Well, the Church cannot answer that question, because the Scripture and Apostolic Tradition do not clearly respond to that question.
Therefore, the question remains open and debatable among Catholics. All the Councils, and the dogmas, can say, “If a person dies without grace, then such and such will happen.” But God is mysterious and we do not know for sure who God allows to die with grace, or without grace. For who can read the mind of God? This is why the Church says that on the question of the salvation of the unbaptized, we cannot be for sure.
We can, however, trust, that God finds a way to give sanctifying grace to those who do not have water baptism but who are loved by God in other ways.
Raise your hand ✋🏽 if you recognize this guy❗️#prolifegen Repost from @abort73 –> an educational movement about abortion; check them out: @abort73 ・・・
Thanks to @kayte_kelsey for posting another pic of the new #Abort73 #GUNS shirts! Is it just us, or does he look somewhat familiar?! #dresslikeamoviestar #prolife #prolifegen #abortion #endabortion #sideshowbob #beawitness #wearashirt #postapic #woulditbotherusmore
NA is an odd one to me, as S&S is, but in a very different way. It’s light and fluffy, even by comparison to P&P, and very funny–it lets itself be ridiculous which the others rarely or ever do. It feels a bit more like the Juvenilia: not quite that level of farce, but certainly nearer to it. It’s a bit reductive to say it’s only a parody of Gothic novels, but that’s certainly a huge part of it.
It’s very much about reading, which I think is why the very eighteenth/nineteenth century but very un-Austen-like digression into Why Novels Are a Valid Art Form doesn’t feel quite as intrusive as it could have. I really love that passage in particular–it still is intrusive, though, and it’s exactly the sort of thing she mocked about potential criticisms of P&P.
The characters are fun, but beyond Catherine are very static (and she herself does not significantly change; for me the most interesting thing is that Austen goes to pains to show that she was fundamentally right). Henry Tilney is both fabulous and completely distinct from the other love interests– a sort of proto-Mr Bennet, or even proto-Elizabeth. (If you ignore gender, many of the narrative descriptions are virtually interchangeable.)
Stylistically, it’s very uneven; there are chunks, esp in the first half, that are more or less classic Austen, and quite a bit that isn’t quite there, esp as far as free indirect style (for which she’s rightly famous) is concerned. @youcanbemyjohng could tell you more about that 🙂
Austen herself gave up on revising it to her later standards, which is why it was only published after she dies. Given the stylistic inconsistencies, the static characters, how deeply grounded it is in the 1790s, I can see why, but I’m glad it’s around. The characters are engaging, Austen’s adult prose is always great, and if it’s a bit shallow, it’s in a very fun, enjoyable way that still has interesting things to say.
Oh dear, just five? How could I possibly rank them?
1. The Battle off Samar, October 25, 1944.
2. The Emu War, November 2-December 10, 1932
3. That one time in 1895 when the only two cars in Ohio crashed into each other
4. Every single time Switzerland has “accidentally” invaded Liechtenstein throughout the 20th century
5. This one is a little less significant but I love the story nevertheless:
“There is one example of a USAAF pilot displaying an American flag on his kill markings – and not only diplaying it proudly, but receiving a DFC for his action! Lt. Louis Curdes of the 4th Fighter Squadron, 3rd Air Commando Group was flying a P-51D on February 10, 1945, during a sweep to Batan Island. He saw a P-51 pilot parachute into the sea, and Curdes circled around him to pinpoint his position to rescuers. While circling, he saw a USAAF C-47 that was preparing to land on the Japanese-held strip on Batan. Unable to veer the C-47 away, Curdes saw only two possibilities – first that it was a Japanese plane using US markings (the DC-3 was made under licence in Japan,) or it was a US plane truly lost. He therefore carefully shot out both engines, causing the plane to land in the sea. All 13 people on board the C-47 were rescued – and they were indeed Americans, including several nurses, one of whom was a girlfriend of Curdes (he married her later, too)!
The plane had lost its way, and had tried to land in error on the Japanese-held island. Curdes’ quick thinking averted the Americans’ capture. He later adorned the victory scoreboard on his P-51 with seven German swastikas, one Italian fasces, one Japanese rising sun, and one American flag!“
In the original books, Hermione was a clever, kick-ass character made highly relatable by her imperfections. The movies erased most of her flaws, making her a better ‘role model for girls’, but a far less interesting person: a typical weakly written strong woman. So here are a few things we should remember about Hermione:
1. She is an outsider. Just like Harry, she is often clueless about the unspoken rules of wizarding society, but unlike Harry she has no illustrious parentage and pretty green eyes to compensate for it. This goes beyond the blatant racism she is shown for her muggle-born status, and means that assimilation is a constant conscious struggle for her.
2. She has bad social skills. She is a good friend, but not always good company. Hermione isn’t called a know-it-all just because smart girls tend to be bullied, she is a know-it-all. She can sometimes ‘manage’ people when she tries, but when she doesn’t pay attention she is often blunt and tactless. She alternates between showing off her knowledge and assuming everybody knows what she knows, and she talks a lot about things only she is interested in. Remember how she introduces herself to Harry – it is far more awkward than cute, and she doesn’t outgrow it entirely. I know that opinionated women are often put down for opening their mouths, but Hermione is a more interesting character for having moments where she is genuinely grating and arrogant.
3. She is authoritarian. She has a worrying authoritarian streak, repeatedly choosing the rules over her friends in the first few books, such as the time when she lets Harry’s new Firebolt be confiscated. She was still unwilling to disobey an instruction in a textbook in book six, when she had already organised resistance against Umbridge and broken into the Department of Mysteries. This of course means that every time she chooses to break a rule is emphatically more awesome. When she perceives herself to be in a position of authority, she expects the same obedience from other people. She often makes decisions for people, speaks over them. Sometimes this is a positive trait, her friends often ask her to do their homework for them, and the planning she does for DA actually pays off. But she often assumes – that Harry’s broomstick is cursed, that house-elves want freedom, that Trelawney is a fraud. One of the most interesting aspects of her character development is outgrowing this to learn to break rules and actually listen to people.
4. She has a habit of obsessively focusing on things. Again, sometimes this is productive, such as when she takes off to the library for hours and comes back with a solution, but sometimes it is silly like her crush on Lockhart or harmful like the entire S.P.E.W. fiasco. Combined with her monologues, her hit-and-miss social skills and her adherence to rules, I am surprised the internet isn’t flooded with headcanons that put her somewhere on the autistic spectrum.
5. She is not pretty. I know that casting couldn’t predict Emma Watson growing up to be model-gorgeous, but I remember watching 11-year-old Hermione and already thinking she looks far too polished. It’s not that book Hermione is ugly, it’s just that she puts no effort into her looks. The point of the ball room scene is that she proves to herself that she is capable of presenting traditionally feminine and attractive if she tries really-really hard, not that she has always been beautiful without trying. Her unprettiness was actually one of the factors that made her so relatable, and while I didn’t expect the movies to actively make her ugly, they could have just at least chosen less flattering clothes and put slightly less product in her hair.
6. She has fears. She is extremely brave, but she is still human, and there are moments when she loses control. She panics when the Devil’s Snare attacks her, and Ron has to snap her out of it. She shows visible fear when faced with hippogriffs, with centaurs, with Grawp, and one time she fails to defeat a boggart. She is afraid of flying, and as a result she isn’t simply uninterested in quidditch, she actively sucks at it, but still gets onto a hippogriff, a thestral and a dragon. She is all right at Defense and duelling, but despite all her work lacks Harry’s raw talent. This doesn’t make her weak – a perfectly brave person is much less motivational than a person who is terrified but does her best.
7. She has a near-pathological fear of failure. This is partly due to her outsider status, partly her personality, but she is a nervous wreck and an overachiever. One of the first things she says is that she knows all textbooks by heart and hopes it will be enough. This isn’t mere intellectual curiosity, this is sheer fucking terror. She isn’t that smart merely because she’s gifted, but because she relentlessly overworks herself. In the third books she uses time-travel to get to all of her classes, and she spends most of the book looking half-dead with exhaustion. She is often described as frazzled or otherwise nervous, and for god’s sake, her boggart is a failed test! Again, she starts to grow out of this around book five, but it still remains a part of who she is. In the case of movie Hermione, her fear gets minimised into a generic smart-girl personality.
Hermione is awesome, but the more perfect she is the less she has to do with us, smart unpretty girls looking for someone to relate to. Or just people in general, looking for someone to relate to. Let the movies keep their superhuman super-clever Hermione who stares danger in the face but is upset that her hair looks bad from behind. I want book Hermione, a girl with flaws, a woman with issues who has to work and learn in order to overcome her inadequacies and become the good friend and great witch she is.
The Blue Castle 