Below are two motets I recorded with some great singers.
Many thanks to Robin, Jamie, and Craig.
My musical CV/Resumé
Une Voix dans Rama
This Christmas Joy
Une voix dans Rama s'est fait entendre,
pleur et longue plainte:
(et d'abondants sanglots amers)
C'est Rachel pleurant ses enfants;
et elle ne veut pas qu'on la console,
car ils ne sont plus.
A voice was heard in Ramah,
sobbing and loud lamentation;
(and profuse bitter weeping)
Rachel weeping for her children,
and she would not be consoled,
since they were no more.
Matthew 2: 18
Bible verses taken from la Bible du Semeur. (text in parenthesis)
Copyright © 1992, 1999 Société Biblique Internationale. With permission.
Bible verses taken from la Bible de Jérusalem. (text without parenthesis)
Copyright © 2003 Les Éditions du Cerf. With permission.
---
This Christmas Joy
by Gerald McClain
In swaddling clothes to us arrive,
This Jesus Christ, our hopes revive!
In Marys arms, her little boy:
This tiny babe, death to destroy.
Was not in clouds, come down to reign
But from a girl in labor pain; (Revelation 12: 2)
Not in a throne was he to lay
But in a manger full of hay.
Welcome to Him from us today,
This Christmas joy, in us to stay.
From foreign lands their homage paid:
To Bethlehem, the star did say.
Fall prostrate where did shepherds come;
Laid out their gifts a costly sum.
Then in a dream: from Herods gaze,
Another path to home was made.
A furious king proclaimed forthright
That innocents shall loose their life.
Though in a world with evil known,
This Christmas joy, Love has outshone.
Give glory to the Fathers Son:
Begotten of the Holy One.
Though evry part is from the same,
The Word to us in flesh he came.
A preview of the coming years,
A final act to wipe all tears:
From nursling small to mature man,
Fulfillment of the Godheads plan.
All praise and laud and glorious powr,
This Christmas joy, tis Jesses flowr.
Gerald McClain
© 2005 Musique de McClain
8-19-05
21 September 2009
16 September 2009
Nobody for Chatting?
I just discovered that my only follower, Pro Life Girl, took me off her list to follow my blog. Might it be that I'm on the fence about healthcare?
I'm not for government climbing into and devouring our wallets from the inside out, but government does take our money for everyone's use on roads and for defense.
I'm a Republican for one issue only for the most part (I am also against overspending/borrowing), but I would love to join the Democrats if only the new feminazis would stop pushing baby killing (for all four trimesters).
The thing is, it seems that only people who agree with you 100% follow what you have to say. I think it's important to discuss through or chat about our disagreements. Maybe we'll dispose with some nonsensical heresies theological and otherwise.
(How can one be against abortion and for torture? Does Judie Brown really believe this? What's here definition of torture?)
I'm not for government climbing into and devouring our wallets from the inside out, but government does take our money for everyone's use on roads and for defense.
I'm a Republican for one issue only for the most part (I am also against overspending/borrowing), but I would love to join the Democrats if only the new feminazis would stop pushing baby killing (for all four trimesters).
The thing is, it seems that only people who agree with you 100% follow what you have to say. I think it's important to discuss through or chat about our disagreements. Maybe we'll dispose with some nonsensical heresies theological and otherwise.
(How can one be against abortion and for torture? Does Judie Brown really believe this? What's here definition of torture?)
10 September 2009
Obamacare Oxymoron?
Last night during [Pres] Obama's congressional healthcare speech, US Rep. Joe Wilson of SC yelled out that [Pres] Obama lies. He tweeted (according to govtrack.us),
Some would say that this outburst during the speech would end his career, but I think it will galvanize his electorate to vote for him. (Is it a coincidence that he was a staffer for Senator Strom Thurmond of SC?)
Yes, Obama lies out of both sides of his mouth all the time, but what politician doesn't? I'm not excusing [Pres] Obama; he just wants to do a good job in his latest drive-by position (he spends very little time in his jobs; would a HR manager hire him now for a union position if s/he saw his resume?).
---
About Obamacare as an oxymoron, does [Pres] Obama really care about people and/or their intelligence when he lies so much, though. Is he just pandering to the health insurance industry to get them more business on the taxpayers dime, no 3/4+ paycheck? Is he just a moron to think people don't realize that he lies so blatantly? If he told the truth more often and/or care about people's intelligence, would he get more done (am I just naive)?
Just wondering.
---
Despite all the lies from the left and fear mongering from the right, I'm still on the fence if a public option is the way to go. Actually, I think the main problem is tort law: the amount of money from lawsuits is astronomical. Also, the pay for service system is fishy.
Nonetheless, people I know who don't have jobs and are mid-aged or less can't get health insurance. Yes, rationing may well happen under a public option but rationing also happens now. Those without a job or extra money to burn are out of doctor offices and into ER's (what if they might have (early stage?) cancer?).
My stance now is simple. I will stay out of the debate unless abortion is to be mandated, because I don't assume to know all the answers about health care/health insurance.
---
One last question, if Obama thinks that pinpointing the starting point of human life is above his pay grade (he knows as much now about this question as he did before he became (perhaps legitimately) US President), how can he think that figuring out how to (solve forever, supposedly) the healthcare system (and all the other issues) is within his paygrade?
Happy Labor Day! Wonderful parade at Chapin, many people called out to oppose Obamacare which I assured them would be relayed tomorrow to DC. (Sep 7, 2009)
Some would say that this outburst during the speech would end his career, but I think it will galvanize his electorate to vote for him. (Is it a coincidence that he was a staffer for Senator Strom Thurmond of SC?)
Yes, Obama lies out of both sides of his mouth all the time, but what politician doesn't? I'm not excusing [Pres] Obama; he just wants to do a good job in his latest drive-by position (he spends very little time in his jobs; would a HR manager hire him now for a union position if s/he saw his resume?).
---
About Obamacare as an oxymoron, does [Pres] Obama really care about people and/or their intelligence when he lies so much, though. Is he just pandering to the health insurance industry to get them more business on the taxpayers dime, no 3/4+ paycheck? Is he just a moron to think people don't realize that he lies so blatantly? If he told the truth more often and/or care about people's intelligence, would he get more done (am I just naive)?
Just wondering.
---
Despite all the lies from the left and fear mongering from the right, I'm still on the fence if a public option is the way to go. Actually, I think the main problem is tort law: the amount of money from lawsuits is astronomical. Also, the pay for service system is fishy.
Nonetheless, people I know who don't have jobs and are mid-aged or less can't get health insurance. Yes, rationing may well happen under a public option but rationing also happens now. Those without a job or extra money to burn are out of doctor offices and into ER's (what if they might have (early stage?) cancer?).
My stance now is simple. I will stay out of the debate unless abortion is to be mandated, because I don't assume to know all the answers about health care/health insurance.
---
One last question, if Obama thinks that pinpointing the starting point of human life is above his pay grade (he knows as much now about this question as he did before he became (perhaps legitimately) US President), how can he think that figuring out how to (solve forever, supposedly) the healthcare system (and all the other issues) is within his paygrade?
24 August 2009
Is This Saying Hard?
Three years ago (as I guest posted at my friend's blog), the same readings were read at mass yesterday. One of them was from Ephesians 5.
I asked what people's priests (deacons) said about this reading if anything at all. My priest avoided the reading explicitly.
This year, however, he said some good things about it. The wife being subordinate does not mean doing the laundry, he said, or doing more chores. For the husband, it doesn't mean that we are to be waited on, necessarily, but that we are to also wash the feet of our wives and our neighbor. (These are my priest's ideas.)
I think people now a days would perhaps cringe less at the idea of drinking Jesus' body and blood than at this Ephesians reading. People think that the (RC) Church believes that women are less than men in some way(s). No, we are to "[b]e subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."
So, what did your priest or deacon say about this reading this year, if anything?
Brothers and sisters:
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the church,
he himself the savior of the body.
As the church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything [see my note below].
Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.
I asked what people's priests (deacons) said about this reading if anything at all. My priest avoided the reading explicitly.
This year, however, he said some good things about it. The wife being subordinate does not mean doing the laundry, he said, or doing more chores. For the husband, it doesn't mean that we are to be waited on, necessarily, but that we are to also wash the feet of our wives and our neighbor. (These are my priest's ideas.)
I think people now a days would perhaps cringe less at the idea of drinking Jesus' body and blood than at this Ephesians reading. People think that the (RC) Church believes that women are less than men in some way(s). No, we are to "[b]e subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."
So, what did your priest or deacon say about this reading this year, if anything?
23 July 2009
Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg?
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
The question and answer have many very important implications.
This is a three (3) part video:
I. Introduction and answer
II. Reapplication of the answer
III. Social and political consequences (prolife? OTAAAC?)
References:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
(2) http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/question85.htm
(3) http://people.cs.uu.nl/hansb/religion/chickenegg.html
(4) http://business.fortunecity.com/johns/139/index6.html
(5) http://www.arrogantatheist.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=729&page=1
14 July 2009
How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?
How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?
Besides the detriment to religious institutions and those with religious objections to those in same-sex "marriages" (and teaching it as a norm in public schools), what harm to "traditional" or "real" marriages will occur from codifying same-sex "marriage" into law?
Some resources:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/06/259
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
http://www.marriagedebate.com/ssm.php
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/what-marriage-is-and-what-it-isnt
(Will be available free in a few months after July 2009!)
http://www.iptv.org/video/browse.cfm/program/20022
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/11/priority-of-strengthening-families.html
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/05/pseudogamy-101.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243,00.html
http://positivelywaiting.blogspot.com/2008/05/marriage-from-teens-point-of-view.html
Besides the detriment to religious institutions and those with religious objections to those in same-sex "marriages" (and teaching it as a norm in public schools), what harm to "traditional" or "real" marriages will occur from codifying same-sex "marriage" into law?
Some resources:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/06/259
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
http://www.marriagedebate.com/ssm.php
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/what-marriage-is-and-what-it-isnt
(Will be available free in a few months after July 2009!)
http://www.iptv.org/video/browse.cfm/program/20022
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/11/priority-of-strengthening-families.html
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/05/pseudogamy-101.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243,00.html
http://positivelywaiting.blogspot.com/2008/05/marriage-from-teens-point-of-view.html
09 July 2009
OTAAAC (pro life) Debate Advice
I just (sort-of) finished two debates with people who are PAAAC (pro-choice). One wanted abortion to come to Ireland, one wanted ESCR to stay on-board, respectively below.
Of course, at the end of the day, it only matters if a human is a person from conception onward. Both debaters came to this point, but their responses were puzzling:
I asked, "At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"
She said, "Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist."
The other man (heatmourning33) said (after I believe his personhood definition was destroyed), "I don't have all the answers, your way could be the better way to go, I havent [sic] been convinced."
Do you notice that the question of personhood doesn't really matter in the end to these PAAAC (pro-choice) people?
This leads me to the following advice:
Before starting to debate, ask explicitly the following question:
FYI: The US Supreme Court:
Of course, at the end of the day, it only matters if a human is a person from conception onward. Both debaters came to this point, but their responses were puzzling:
I asked, "At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"
She said, "Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist."
The other man (heatmourning33) said (after I believe his personhood definition was destroyed), "I don't have all the answers, your way could be the better way to go, I havent [sic] been convinced."
Do you notice that the question of personhood doesn't really matter in the end to these PAAAC (pro-choice) people?
This leads me to the following advice:
Before starting to debate, ask explicitly the following question:
If personhood is established for a [zygote or equivalent], does the [woman/state/scientist/president/etc.] still have a right to kill the [zygote or equivalent] in your view?
FYI: The US Supreme Court:
If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)