IC XC NIKA – Jesus Christ conquers!

No photo description available.

Jesus Christ conquers!

Jesus Christ is victorious!

Jesus Christ is Lord!

As the “Word Incarnate” blog explains it,

IC XC are abbreviations (in both Greek and Slavonic) for the name Jesus Christ. NIKA is a Greek verb that means ‘conquers’ (perhaps ‘is victorious’ is better, though not as grammatically accurate).”

And of course, the sigil in the laurel-wreath, surmounted by a crown, is the Chi Rho, another monogram of Christ, being the first letters of that divine name – CH + R – in Greek. Although the letters are Greek, they could also be seen as standing for the first initials of “Christus Rex” (Christ the King) in Latin.

I love this image, with the Imperial double eagle as well as the crowned laurel-wreath emphasizing the heavenly Kingship of Christ! And the earthly Kinship as well, of course; for although He said “my Kingdom is not of this world,” during His Incarnation, that was to warn people against thinking that he was a merely earthly monarch, or that the salvation He wrought was merely temporal in nature.

In His essence, He is King of both Heaven and Earth, and while in a temporal sense His reign has not yet come, sub specie aeternitatis – “under the aspect of eternity,” in relation to the eternal, in light of that which is eternally and universally true – His Kingship is likewise both universal and eternal, existing throughout all time and space.

Ave Christus Rex!

 

On this day in 1981: President Reagan is shot

On this day in 1981 – toward the end of my sophomore year of high school – a deranged John Hincklely, Jr., attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, in a misguided and very nearly tragic attempt to impress actress Jodi Foster. Fortunately, he failed, but by the very breadth of a hair: Reagan had been shot under his left arm, but the bullet had ricocheted off a rib and into his lung; it had stopped less than an inch from his heart.

Three others were also wounded in the attack: White House Press Secretary James Brady, D.C. police officer Thomas Delahanty, and Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, who was wounded covering President Reagan with his own body. Brady was the most seriously wounded of the four, being shot in the head and left permanently paralyzed. He unfortunately later allowed himself to be used as the poster-boy for gun control in the 1980s and ’90s.

President Reagan was severely wounded, but he was a man of tremendous toughness, both mental (until robbed of that, most sadly, by Alzheimer’s disease, in later years) and physical. The most moving episode of this incident was one we did not learn about until much later: how when they arrived at Walter Reed Medical Center, the President – in excruciating pain and weak from loss of blood – nonetheless insisted on walking into the hospital under his own power.

Once safely inside and away from the cameras of the press, he all but collapsed into the arms of the waiting medical staff, and was immediately whisked away by stretcher: but the point had been made. He did not wish America’s enemies to see her Commander-in-Chief laid low by an assassin’s bullet. That personal moral courage and strength of will is one of the reasons he will always live in my heart as my favorite President, at least of my own lifetime. God bless his memory!

He was also a man of tremendous good humor: not for nothing was he referred to as “the Great Communicator.” Historian, author, and Constitutional scholar Tara Ross commented, in her post on the subject today,

“Naturally, a little thing like being shot couldn’t dampen Reagan’s sense of humor. When he saw [his wife Nancy] at the hospital, he quipped, ‘Honey, I forgot to duck.’ On the way into surgery, he told his doctor, ‘I hope you’re a Republican.’ The doctor (who happened to be a liberal Democrat) responded with class: ‘Today, Mr. President, we’re all Republicans.’

As Reagan recovered from surgery, he was placed on a respirator to help his left lung, which had collapsed. The Gipper was still cracking jokes—even if he had to scribble them on a piece of paper. ‘I’d like to do this scene again,’ he wrote, ‘starting at the hotel.'”

She adds,

“Despite his age and the bullet wound, Reagan recovered quickly and was soon back at work, signing a bill from his hospital bed by the next day. In the end, he spent a little less than two weeks in the hospital.”

One tough cookie! But the story isn’t quite over, yet:

Later that year, while giving a speech in West Berlin, a balloon loudly popped. The President paused for the briefest of moments, glanced up with a twinkle in his eye, commented “Missed me,” and continued with his speech. The crowd, understandably, went wild with applause and cheering. He was one of a kind: God’s gift to our nation at that crucial time in our history, he was by turns inspirational, entertaining, and reassuring. Sometimes all of the above, at once!

President Reagan was President from 1981–1989 – basically throughout my “coming of age” years – and was the first President I ever voted for (in 1984). I must confess that I did not and do not agree with everything he said and did as President, but between his success in restoring America’s self-confidence following the debacle of Vietnam, his key role in bringing down the Soviet Union, and incidents such as this which revealed him as a man of great and admirable character, there is a sense in which he will always be, for me, “the” President.

Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes? | The Catholic Thing

Related image
This particular pair of “distressed” jeans is only $19.97 at the website “Zulily“; many are much more expensive. Young women (and some young males) are paying good money for clothing (?) that looks like they rescued it from the dumpster.

Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes? Short answer: yes. Deliberately ripped garments work against the purpose of clothes. They are caricatures of clothing.

Source: Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes?

This article, the link to which appeared in my email in-box this morning, is timely. I had just been thinking, over the last week or so, about the difference in attire between “my generation” in middle and high school, and what I am seeing now, at the high school where I teach driver education.

In some respects, high schoolers are dressing, at least in school – whether voluntarily or due to imposed dress-codes, I do not know – in a way that is less overtly revealing or provocative they they did in my day. (I am addressing primarily female students’ attire, as I have never had, and still do not, any interest in inspecting males or their clothing! But many of the same problems and principles apply equally to popular contemporary male attire.)

At any rate, there are fewer bare midriffs, nowadays; fewer if any camisole tops and not many tank-tops. Shorts (if worn at all) are, for the most part, not particularly short. Skirts of any sort are rare, but I can’t remember the last time I saw a miniskirt (wail and gnash your teeth, women for whom the “right” to wear a miniskirt was a political issue in the 1970s). And while there are “skinny jeans,” there is something decidedly less attractive about the way they hug the form than I recall of the Jordaches and Calvin Kleins of yesteryear!

In that sense, I suppose it could be said that young women are dressing (at least while at school) more “modestly” than they used to, “back in the day.” That is good, to a point. The problem is what they’re replacing it with. Continue reading “Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes? | The Catholic Thing”