The Oxford Comma

    The Oxford Comma is a comma that most people add to a list of three or more things mentioned in the same clause. Consider the following two sentences: 

I ate some roast beef, some chicken and a pizza. 

I ate some roast beef, some chicken, and a pizza. 

    Did you notice the difference? In the second sentence, there is a comma after the word chicken, while in the first sentence, there isn't. Many grammar teachers will teach that the first sentence is grammatically incorrect, but that technically isn't true. While it makes sense to separate all the direct objects with commas, an argument may be made not to. For example, in the sentence 

I ate some roast beef and some chicken. 

there is no comma. Some use this as an argument not to use the Oxford Comma, since there is no comma after chicken in this sentence, and adding more objects would necessitate one comma for each of them. By adding a third object and choosing to use the Oxford Comma, you would have to add one object and two commas, which drives some people crazy. (Confused yet?) 

    Whether or not one includes the Oxford Comma is a matter of personal preference. All three sentences are grammatically correct. I always use the Oxford Comma, but I'd respect the decision not to. 

Epicene Pronouns?

Have you ever heard of epicene pronouns? Epicene pronouns are grammatically incorrect, but are commonly used in conversation nowadays. Here's an example: 

Anyone who eats should wash his hands first. 

Anyone who eats should wash their hands first. 

    While many grammar websites try to normalize these pronouns (and have given their very own, professional sounding nickname), it is simply false. Any first grader will tell you that they / their is a third person, plural pronoun. Take for example, the above sentence. It is obviously a general statement, but it is only referring to one person at a time. In fact, the subject of the sentence is anyone. To use a plural pronoun in this sentence would be absurd. Technically, if the subject's number is known to be singular but the gender is unknown, the singular pronoun that is used would be he / his. 

    Now, in the long history of the English language, only recently has this become controversial. Usually, the debate surrounds gender neutrality. This particular debate has almost nothing to do with grammar, but everything to do with morality and science. The subject will likely be explored on this blog at a later date, but for the present this is an article focusing on objective grammar. 

    A third way to write the above sentence that I sometimes see is this: 

Anyone who eats should wash his or her hands first. 

    Technically, this is correct grammar, but it is too wordy. Generally, this sentence is used by those who realize the absurdity of epicene pronouns but don't want to offend those who use them. In some circumstances, this could be the most prudent option (for example, if you're communicating the message to a group that you know to be made up of both boys and girls), but as someone with writer's OCD, I personally tend to use the first sentence in both speech and writing. Not only is it 100% grammatically correct, but it is just a bit more concise than constantly saying his or her. And if you're relaying the message to a group exclusively made up of males, then the first sentence would obviously be the only correct option. 

A True Story

Once upon a time, there was a man named Joe who didn’t like to work. He had grown up on a farm, and never thought that was the life for him. His parents told him that barn chores would teach him a sense of responsibility, but Joe only did them because, in his house, if you didn’t work, you didn’t eat. After dinner, instead of leaving his dishes on the table to have his mother pick them up and throw them in a handy dandy dishwasher, Joe and his siblings had to scrub their plates themselves. His dad always told him, “If you make a mess, you’d better clean it up. Not only are you responsible for your own actions, but cleaning up after yourself will teach you how much work it takes to make sure that you can eat off a clean plate.” While Joe obeyed his parents, he much preferred to play football and let his parents handle the chores. 

When Joe grew up and moved out of his parents’ house, he bought his first house in the country, where he could walk to Church, produce his own food, and have everything he needed within walking distance. He worked as a plumber, walking house to house in his community and fixing toilets. Despite the luxuries that such a lifestyle provided, Joe wasn’t a fan of it. His wife was prissy and didn’t like to get her nails dirty in the garden. The animals required a lot of time and attention, and they smelled bad. The garden, too, required a lot of work; if he ever decided not to water the plants, they would die. And to top it off, he hated his job. He thought that plumbing would be a useful skill to have, but he got sick of smelling diarrhea day after day. The longer he continued this lifestyle, the more Joe hated it. 

One day, he was offered a desk job in the city that offered him healthcare benefits and better pay, and didn’t smell like diarrhea. He’d have to move to the suburbs, and the move would present him with many new challenges. For example, the cost of living was higher in the suburbs, and he would have to travel longer distances to visit his family or go to Church. He probably couldn’t homestead in the city if he lived on a quarter acre, instead relying on the grocery store for his food. He didn’t like the idea of eating processed groceries or commuting half an hour to work each day, but it sure beat unclogging toilets. He would never plumb again, he thought, so he decided to forget everything he knew about the profession. If his toilet ever acted up, he could call a different plumber, and then he wouldn’t have to get his hands dirty. And although he spent a lot of money each week to buy food at the store, heck, he thought, it was worth it as long as he didn’t have to take care of pigs and cows. In the end, he ended up drinking the milk, whether or not he milked the cow. Somebody else would do it, he thought, and this became his motto. After six months in his new house, Joe was quite content with himself. 

Pretty soon Joe’s wife got pregnant and had twins. In order to support his growing family, Joe had to work long hours, and never woke up in the morning feeling as if he’d gotten enough sleep. As the cost of living grew ever higher, he felt that, if he wanted to watch football and keep in touch with his other hobbies, then he must not waste any time that could be spent working. He took his kids out of sports because they were too much of a commitment. He had been eating relatively healthy, but soon he told his wife to stop spending so much on healthy foods and buy more TV dinners. Sure they weren’t as healthy, but he didn’t really care. They were cheaper, for one, and quicker, as he could simply have his wife pop one in the microwave and bring it up to his office. All in the name of convenience. Soon he made his wife get a job, and with no one around to cook, started having uber deliver his meals. This was rather expensive, and quite unhealthy, but it was quite convenient. He didn’t want to waste any of his time cooking if he didn’t have to; he’d rather be working or watching the Cowboys. As long as someone else was doing it for him, he was happy. 

Sometimes he wondered what would happen if he didn’t have grocery stores or high speed internet to sustain his life of laziness. Nah, I don’t need to worry about that, he thought; I live in America. Nobody can take away what Americans produce. And he quickly dismissed all doubts to the sustainability of his lifestyle. 

One day, he read on CNN that a virus had escaped a lab in China and was spreading throughout the world. Every day, the risk of infection was getting worse, and the government declared a national emergency, telling everyone to stay indoors so as not to infect each other. Courageous, selfless healthcare and government workers were tirelessly working to bend the curve. At this time, Joe decided to let the government take care of national emergencies. As long as he obeyed their advanced understanding of science and trusted the elected representatives of the United States, everything would be all right. Before long, he was doing everything the government told him to. 

The government told him to wear a mask. He decided to because if he didn’t he’d be a no good son of a bleep who only thinks about himself instead of the good of the community. Then he had lung problems. But it could have been much worse; he could have died of COVID-19. 

The government told him to get an untested vaccine. He decided to because if he didn’t he’d be a no good son of a bleep who only thinks about himself instead of the good of the community. Then he had an unexpected heart attack. But it could have been much worse; he could have refused the vaccine and risked getting COVID-19. Heaven forbid. 

The government told him to turn in his guns. He decided to because if he didn’t he’d be a no good son of a bleep who only thinks about himself instead of the good of the community. Then he got mugged and had no way to defend himself. But if he and other respectable citizens didn’t turn in their firearms, then all sorts of crazy people would be roaming the streets shooting each other. 

One day, he read on CNN that the U.S. economy was collapsing. America had sold trillions of dollars of debt to China, and China decided to wipe them out by destroying their only currency, the dollar, which was backed by nothing but the word of the U.S. government. All the money that Joe and his wife had in the bank disappeared. The American people had to struggle to survive. Ever since Joe had moved to the suburbs, he had to rely on grocery stores for his food. Now, he had no skills and no resources; he had to rely on his neighbors for food. Further, if his car broke down, he had to track down a mechanic; if his toilet overflowed, he wouldn’t know what to do except for whizzing on trees (which was probably bad for the environment). Joe simply could not support himself or his family as long as his digital assets were gone. 

Unfortunately for Joe, he was not prepared for the economy’s collapse. Many of his neighbors had stores of food in case of emergency, but Joe didn’t. Many of his neighbors had invested in silver and used this to trade; all of Joe’s money existed on a computer in a defunct bank. Joe was relatively wealthy before the collapse, but now he was entirely dependent on the kindness of his neighbors. If they didn’t want to keep helping him, then he’d starve to death.

Stop Receiving Holy Communion On The Hand!

Nearly 2,000 years ago, Jesus offered up His Body as a sacrifice to be continued throughout the ages. This same sacrifice is offered at every Catholic Mass up to the present day. By participating in this sacrifice, the faithful have the opportunity to receive Jesus’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. The reception of Holy Communion is the most solemn prayer that anyone can make on Earth, and it should be respected as such, both in attitude and in proper practice. 

Throughout most of the Church’s history, communicants were only allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist on the tongue. In 1969, Pope St. Paul VI granted the faithful permission to receive Holy Communion on the hand. While this is no longer against Church Law, it is still not the preferred method for a variety of reasons. 

In the first place, receiving Holy Communion on the hand is generally less reverent than receiving on the tongue. Ever since the Church permitted it, belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has plummeted. In a study issued on August 5, 2019 (https://pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/), it was determined that only 31% of U.S. Catholics believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation - an absolutely appalling figure. Not surprisingly, the reception of Communion on the hand plays a key part in this stunning revelation. How could this be Jesus if I am receiving it like I would a coin at the gas station? This dropoff in belief was a goal of many anti-Catholic organizations that stressed Communion on the hand. For example, in AA-1025: Memoirs of the Communist Infiltration Into the Church, it reads, “the faithful will have to break themselves of the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion. Very soon, the Host will be laid in the hand in order that all notion of the Sacred be erased.” Having held the paten for thousands of communicants in the past four years, I have observed that the ones who receive in the hand often walk off with the Host before consuming it, which is forbidden by the Church; Communion must be received in the presence of the minister. In addition, they forfeit their special moment of worship when first receiving Him, the closest you’ll be to Jesus in this life. 

In the second place, receiving Communion on the hand is extremely, extremely risky for the potential loss of particles. Receiving on the hand increases the risk of the Host being dropped or stolen. More often, however, the communicant receives the Host cleanly and consumes it, but still has particles on his hand. To put into perspective how serious this is, consider the very specific regulations that the Church has set forth on how to purify linens and sacred vessels (https://www.cathdal.org/Purification_of_Vessels_Policy.pdf). Such attention to detail should become far more scrupulous after reception on the hand, since any loose particles of Jesus Christ could easily be brushed onto the floor and trampled underfoot. A very scary thought indeed. 

On an important tangent, the Church has set forth very specific guidelines on the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. In Redemptionis Sacramentum, an instruction on certain matters to be observed or avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, the CDF makes clear that, “If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons. Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.” (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html, paragraphs 157-158) The scarcity with which extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are used is a testament to the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and of those whose hands are consecrated through the sacrament of Holy Orders. 

    I have thus far given reasons why the faithful should receive on the tongue, but such information is useless without a proper understanding of how. To properly receive on the tongue, tilt your head back slightly and extend your tongue far out of your mouth. Do not close your mouth until you know that the Host is secure; that increases the risk of it falling. It is good to receive kneeling out of reverence, but kneeling also makes it easier for the paten bearer to catch the Host in case of an accident. Let us all try to be as respectful, careful, and intentional as possible when receiving Holy Communion.

Propaganda! The Lorax (2012)

Oh dear. 

    The 2012 Dreamworks version of The Lorax is supposedly a children's movie, and what's not to love about it? It's a recreation of a classic Dr. Seuss story, filled with whimsical animation, all-star voice talent starring Danny DeVito and Taylor Swift, and an inspiring story about saving trees and the planet. Why shouldn't I show this to my children? 

    As we can clearly tell from this song, The Lorax delivers a very different message. The main character in this story is a twelve year old boy named Ted, who lives in a totalitarian society run by a greedy corporate businessman named O'Hare, who makes a killing selling bottled air to the citizens of Thneed-ville. Although there are no trees in Thneed-ville, O'Hare supplies the city with clean (free) air to sustain the population, while outside the city walls lies a barren wasteland where people are always coughing. Whether or not people purchase O'Hare's product doesn't seem to make a difference to their overall health, but O'Hare has them convinced that it is better for them than the free air all around them. O'Hare allows nobody to leave the city's massive outer walls, keeping a close eye on them with cameras throughout the city and keeping them in line with his own secret police. In order to find a real tree, Ted rides a motorcycle out of city limits to talk to the Once-ler (the "villain" in the song) who was the last person to handle a live tree - albeit to chop it down in order to manufacture an all-purpose product called a thneed (see the connection?). The Once-ler tells his story to Ted, expressing remorse at killing all the trees and polluting the Earth, and gives him the last known truffula tree seed, telling him to plant it and fix the land. In order to keep people dependent on his bottled air (and thus remain in control), O'Hare sends his secret police to stop Ted from planting the seed, but ultimately fails when Ted rips up town square with a giant earthmover. When the useful idiots (I mean citizens) see the tree, they betray their blind trust in O'Hare for blind trust in Ted, overthrowing O'Hare and praising the glory of trees. 

    The movie attempts to emphasize the inevitable climate change when evil businessmen cut down all the trees. However, like most propaganda machines, Dreamworks seems to take no heed of the facts. The Once-ler's business dies when all the trees are gone - you can't make thneeds without the leaves of the truffula trees. What Dreamworks ignores here is the fact that over 80% of newly planted trees are planted by logging and paper companies, which makes a lot of sense. After all, in order to sustain their businesses, they need new trees to turn into lumber - it's just common sense. No more trees, and you end up like our friend the Once-ler - out of business. You can't fault the real life businessmen who intentionally sustain healthy forests by using the example of one fictional doofus who doesn't know how to sustain his business. Additionally, Dreamworks takes a jab at free trade and big business in general - How bad can I be? All the customers are buying, and the money's multiplying. Well duh, if the customers like your product and buy it (as was the case with the thneed), then you're going to make money, and there's nothing wrong with that. While many businessmen are eventually overcome with greed, it's not necessarily business practice that's the problem - it's the love of money, and, predictably, the movie has nothing to say about this. 

Fortunately, God's word has more than enough to say on the matter: 

Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God. - Matthew 19:24 

While capitalism is not a perfect social and economic system, it is certainly better than socialism or communism (CCC 2425). If you think that communism is more just than capitalism, try taking that up with the millions who died under Stalin's regime. 

The Lorax is one of many attempts to disguise political propaganda as family entertainment. Go anarchists! Boo businessmen! It is important not to take a stance on something so critical as social justice, or climate change, based on our impressions from a Dreamworks film.