Mixed Messages

In the aftermath of the 2008 presidential election, pro-lifers are left to wonder what the next four years will bring. Despite all the prayers, the novenas, the distribution of the Catholic Voter Guides, and the warnings of some US bishops, the pro-abortion candidate still won the election. A poll indicated that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama to only 45% for McCain. Those of us who see this general loss of respect for human life spreading like a cancer through our society are stunned by the prospects of at least four years of liberal proliferation.

Perhaps it is not surprising that more than half of the Catholic vote went to Obama when more than half of the Catholic bishops were sheepish about speaking out to their flocks. The dichotomy was quite apparent. Around 80 Bishops issued strong statements placing abortion and the other so-called non-negotiable issues at the forefront. That left some 140 who said little beyond the document issued by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, leaving the door open for those resigned to justify a Democratic vote for other reasons. I cannot imagine any issue that would out-weigh the slaughter of millions of innocent babies in their mothers’ womb.

Our diocesan newspaper (Northwest Indiana Catholic, November 16, 2008) has a banner headline calling Obama’s election “A Historic Day.” The CNS article tells of Pope Benedict’s congratulatory message to Obama as reported by Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi. The article says, “Asked if the pope mentioned any specific issues he was concerned about, Father Lombardi responded, ‘peace, solidarity and justice.’” The article goes on to say the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano published an opinion piece on November 5th, headlined “A choice that unites.” The CNS article also says a commentary on the election for Asianews, a Rome-based missionary news agency, was headlined, “I’m happy for the victory of Barack Obama.” Written by Father Piero Gheddo, a member of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions, the commentary lists only positive results of Obama’s election.

The CNS article covers two-thirds of the front page and the entire back page of the diocesan paper and nowhere mentions of the likely detrimental effects to the Pro-life movement. Yes, Obama’s election is historic, but the article leaves one with the impression that the Church is pleased with the outcome.

An Associated Press story today (November 14, 2008) reports that a South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because of his support of abortion and that supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.” While I am sympathetic to this priest’s stand, the disposition of the voter is relevant in determining whether a mortal sin has actually been committed. Indeed, the priest’s own diocese issued a statement saying his stance did not accurately reflect Church teaching, and again, Catholics may come to conclude there are two sides to the issue, when such is not the case.

On a positive note, Obama’s election with Catholic support has been a wake-up call for the Bishops. Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, issued a congratulatory letter to Obama which said, “We pray that you will use the powers of your office to meet them (uncertainties) with a special concern to defend the most vulnerable among us and heal the divisions in our country and our world.” At the General Assembly in Baltimore this past week, the Bishops approved a Blessing for a Child in the Womb by a 223-1 vote. (I wonder who voted against it?) A Spanish version of the Blessing passed unanimously.

Those of us who were disheartened by the outcome of the election should not despair. A friend sent me a copy of an email he received from his sister, Lucy. It read as follows:

"This morning I arose to the news I dreaded. I wanted to cry.

As I sat down in my chair with my first cup of tea I was silent, speaking with God only in my mind.

I felt such a great despair and in my mind spoke the words, it's over.

Then I realized that this is how the disciples felt when Jesus died upon that cross.

They were in despair, their hopes and dreams had just been laid in the grave. But it wasn't over.

We all know Christ rose from the grave, he conquered death, giving us eternal life,
and he now resides within the heart of every believer through his Holy Spirit.

What seemed like the end was the beginning of new life for all who want this new life.

God always works in ways we do not understand but He is sovereign, in control,
has knowledge and power that are limitless.

If a leader has risen that opposes God, it is only because God has allowed it (Daniel 2:20-23) and
He will work this for His good as He does in all things. (Romans 8:28)

We know the end of the story. God reigns eternally. (Revelation 5:9-13)."

God Bless,
Lucy

Judie, Judie, Judie

With the presidential election quickly approaching, the EWTN Q&A section has been deluged with questions about voting pro-life. Most abortion related questions on the website are answered by Judie Brown, president and co-founder of American Life League. While I very much respect her strong pro-life stand, she seems to favor supporting third party or independent candidates who are 100% pro-life over the two major party candidates, one of whom is going to be elected. In reading some of her more recent responses, she may have softened her approach somewhat, but as recently as last Tuesday, she said, “neither man deserves the vote of a committed pro-life Catholic . . .”

A few days earlier, a questioner voiced support for Alan Keyes who is 100% pro-life. Judie Brown replied that Keyes is still in the running and she suggested another website where people can go for information about write-in candidates.

It would be wonderful if every Catholic could vote for a 100% pro-life candidate such as Alan Keyes, but doing so in this case would only serve to exacerbate the problem. John McCain may not be 100% pro-life, but either he or Barack Obama is going to be elected president next week. As did President Bush, the next president is likely to appoint one or possibly two Supreme Court justices. Obama is a liberal who openly favors abortion rights. If he is president and his party has a majority in Congress, one or two liberal justices will likely be seated on the Court for the next twenty or thirty years.

John McCain says he will appoint constructionists to the bench implying a conservative legal philosophy more favorable to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Judie Brown may find choosing the lesser of two evils unpalatable, but to do otherwise could be tragic. If the majority of pro-life Catholics voted for an independent pro-life candidate, Barack Obama would almost certainly win the election. By stubbornly sticking to an unelectable pro-life candidate, we could actually be perpetuating abortion rights in our country.

Our best chance to stop abortion will rest in the hands a conservative Supreme Court, and despite his shortcomings, John McCain is more likely to appoint such justices. While our attention is focused on the presidential election, even more important is a conservative congress in order to minimize obstacles to the confirmation process, or to block confirmation of liberal nominees should Obama be elected. Don’t think of it as choosing the lesser of two evils. Rather, think of it as choosing the candidate most likely to do good.

In a closely contested race, every vote is important. Wasting it on an unelectable candidate as a matter of principle will not move us closer to the goal. With nearly fifty million active Catholics in the United States, we have the power and the responsibility to stem the intrinsic evils that are becoming entrenched in mainstream America. We can sway public opinion by living our Catholic Faith to the fullest and helping to elect public officials who respect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It’s About Time

Time management can be a challenge for some of us, myself included. Seems like I never accomplish everything I want to do, but the essentials always get done somehow. Over the years, routines develop and days are filled with certain responsibilities of varying importance. Making adjustments for new demands on our time can be difficult, especially as we get older.

Our new pastor has many ideas and goals he wishes to accomplish in our parish. He has been here less than three months, and already I have been asked to assist with a number of projects. So far, I have been given a box of 13 video tapes to review for possible use in catechesis, been asked to serve on two commissions, assist with building a new confessional, recruit men for a proposed St. Joseph Club to meet on Saturday mornings, and help organize an effort to dedicate every home in the parish to the Sacred Heart. I was even called to the rectory at 10:30 one night to disconnect a faulty light fixture. Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind helping out where I can, but at some point, time becomes a premium. I also maintain the parish webpage, assist in the selection of music for the weekend Masses, help out the choir and repair the antiquated church organ. We also have a St. Vincent de Paul conference of which I am a member.

Outside the parish, I work full time, serve on a civic board, do community service, write for a blog that I like to keep up at least monthly, and have a family I like to see once in a while. I have the usual chores around the house and yard work in the summer. People often assume I will take care of certain things, and I do to the best of my ability. One might think I am busy twenty-four hours and day, seven days a week, but I am not, and that brings me to a conundrum. How much is too much? When is it okay to say no? Should I feel guilty because I enjoy one or two evenings a week when I can come home from work and relax?

There is no doubt that most of us spend way too much time wrapped up in the ways of the secular world at the expense of our spiritual health. Our pastor has lamented the fact that efforts to provide spiritual enhancement for our parish go unappreciated. It is difficult to get people to attend parish events, faith formation classes, even Eucharistic adoration. It is quite sad actually. And yet, I find myself feeling a certain dread about further impositions on my time when these opportunities arise.

Earlier this month, a couple in a neighboring town offered an opportunity to honor the birthday of our Blessed Mother with a Sunday Rosary and luncheon in their garden. Our pastor encouraged members of our parish to attend. The next day at end of the weekday Mass commemorating Our Lady’s birth, our pastor asked how we would feel if someone planned a birthday party for us, and no one showed up. I am assuming from his comment that the Rosary was poorly attended. I don’t know because I did not attend either. Is our Blessed Mother offended or disappointed that I did not go? I hope not. I do try to pray the Rosary about four times a week.

I guess the point of all this is that I feel a little burned out at times. I realize my priorities are not in the best of order and that brings on some good old fashioned Catholic guilt. Does Our Lord want me to jettison a few responsibilities in order to spend more time in prayer or adoration, or can I do as well by serving others? Is it okay to reserve some down time for myself, or am I being wasteful if I lie on the sofa to watch a ballgame? I need to give all of this much more thought, but right now I don’t have time.

Latin Loathers

While listening to the Catholic Answers Live radio program recently (7-31-08, first hour), I heard a caller from Spokane, Washington express dismay that the Church was returning to the Latin Mass and nuns in habits. Apologist Jimmy Akin tried to assure her that she need not worry. He explained that no one is advocating a complete return to the Latin Mass. The norm will continue to be Mass in the vernacular. Pope Benedict has merely recognized the attachment some Catholics have to the Latin Mass and has made it permissible for priests to celebrate the Mass in that form for them.

In the middle of Jimmy’s explanation, the caller asked if she could say something. He said yes and the woman stated she was “appalled” that Catholic Answers was so conservative. Regular listeners to Catholic Answers know that of all the Catholic apologist regulars on the program, Jimmy is probably least capable of masking his ire at certain callers when they become combative. Instead of calling them by name, he will address them as “Sir” or “Ma’am”. I sensed a “Ma’am” coming up and Jimmy did not disappoint.

Jimmy explained to her that Catholic Answers is neither conservative nor liberal. Catholic Answers is orthodox, meaning they seek to teach what the Church teaches. The caller became quite agitated and asked, “Where is God in all of this? God didn’t want this” to which Jimmy replied, “How do YOU know that God didn’t want this?” The caller shot back with “How do YOU know he did?” Jimmy stated that he knew God wanted this because it comes from the Pope. At this point, the caller expressed some disdain for the conservative leanings of the Pope prompting Jimmy to express concern for the state of her soul.

This exchange sadly typifies the polarization among some Catholics today regarding liturgical matters, and more importantly where it comes to fidelity to Church teaching. One can be liberal or conservative as long as he or she is orthodox. Being orthodox means respecting the authority of the Pope and accepting what the Church teaches. This is where we get into difficulty with some folks who think they know better than the old man in Rome.

In this particular case, nothing is being imposed on anyone. The Mass to which this woman is accustomed will continue to be the ordinary form. That is not to say the ordinary form cannot be celebrated in Latin. It can be, but Mass in the vernacular will continue to be the norm. What she may find more upsetting is new language in the ordinary form that will be coming soon. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments recently approved a revised English translation of the Order of Mass, which will be binding on us here in the United States.

Our English language undergoes subtle changes over time, sometimes called semantic drift. This happens in many different ways through every day usage. Words take on new meanings or connotations. One of the commonly used examples is the word gay, which usually means something much different today than it did a few decades ago.

Catholic apologists occasionally have to explain that they are so called because they explain and defend certain positions or doctrines of the Church. This type of apology has nothing to do with expressing regret as we commonly use the word today. That same apologist may also find it necessary to explain that when we pray to saints, we are simply asking for their intercession. The word pray originally meant to ask, and that is the way Catholics use it. Prayer in that sense is not a form of worship as some believe.

Changes in the language may seem insignificant, but variations in the way we communicate happen more rapidly than one might think. Our parents used expressions that would seem dated or even nonsensical today. Our children sometimes communicate in slang we do not understand. Find a hundred year-old newspaper and see how much writing styles have changed in a century. Now imagine the challenge facing a two thousand year-old Church in accurately passing down revelation to all of us living today.

That is one of the beauties of Latin. It is a dead language not subject to this evolution of meaning that all other contemporary languages experience. When our liturgies were celebrated universally in Latin, Catholics all over the world were using the same words, hearing and saying the same things. We may not have always known what we were hearing and saying, but we were always united.

When Vatican II permitted Masses to be celebrated in the vernacular, the Latin Mass had to be translated into all the various languages Catholics use, including of course, English. This may sound like a simple task, but it is not. A word for word translation is impossible. Sentence structures differ from one language to another. The translator must express the meaning intended by the original writer, and in many cases, that meaning may be subject to interpretation. In the case of the English translation of the Mass we use today, some would say it was done hastily and does not always adequately express the meaning of the original Latin. The new translation is a more precise translation.

Why is this so important? The Catholic Church is universal and she is one. When we participate in the Mass, every Catholic in the world is united at the foot of the Cross. If we are to be truly united, we must share the same mind and spirit, as Paul tells us. If every translation carries with it some variation in meaning, our unity can be compromised. The best way to assure this does not happen is to stay as close to the original as possible. When the priest says, “The Lord be with you” and we answer “And also with you”, we are not saying exactly what the original Latin says, and therefore, not necessarily what other Catholics are saying in other languages. The more precise response would be “And with your spirit”, and that is what we will soon be saying when the new translation goes into effect.

I pray that people like the caller from Spokane who was “appalled” by any thought of returning to Latin in the Mass, will see the beauty and historical significance of the Latin language in the Church, as well as the benefits of embracing it today. Thanks to the wisdom of Pope Benedict, we will continue to have the ordinary Mass in our improved English translation, plus the beauty and reverence of the Mass in Latin if we so choose, and that is extraordinary!

Fringe Benefits of Catholic Life

One of the most important traits we can pass to our children is self-discipline. At a very early age, they need to understand boundaries. There are certain lines we never cross. For youngsters first approaching the age of reason, it starts with warnings not to play with matches, run with scissors, or cross the street. As they mature, they are told not to use drugs, smoke cigarettes, or engage in pre-marital sex. Good parents are deeply involved in the development of their children to ensure these boundaries are engrained in the psyche. Unfortunately, many children grow up without sufficient parental involvement which results in very little opportunity to learn self-discipline.

So many people today are out of control. They make poor choices throughout their lives seeking immediate gratification that is ultimately self-destructive. They over spend, over eat, over indulge, marry for the wrong reasons, and divorce for the wrong reasons. They choose a path that leads them into despair because they lack the discipline to place self-imposed limits on their behavior. They have never learned self-denial.

Catholics who practice the Faith devoutly are a step ahead of everyone else. Obedience and self-sacrifice are essential elements in living the Catholic life. As a child growing up pre-Vatican II, we never ate meat on Fridays. It may have seemed silly to some non-Catholics, but we learned self-discipline from this little penance. From an early age, we never questioned it. We simply did not eat meat on Friday no matter what. It was a line we never crossed or even considered crossing.

While we are no longer bound to refrain from meat, Fridays are still a day of penance. In some ways, imposing our own Friday penance may be even better for learning self-control. Catholic parents need to make Friday penance a requirement for their children. Allow them to choose their own form of self-denial or work of mercy, and make certain they strictly adhere to that discipline each Friday. For many who find this difficult to do, the easiest way may be to continue the practice of not eating meat. Of course, we must always keep the days of fast and abstinence during Lent.

Catholics learn self-discipline through strict obedience to the Commandments of the Church. We attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation without exception. The question is never, “Are we going to Mass?” The only question may be, “Which Mass are we going to attend?” Missing Mass is not an option for consideration. That is another line we never cross.

In studying our Faith, we learn about the importance of covenants, especially the new and everlasting covenant we receive in Jesus. Unlike a contract, a covenant is unbreakable. Applied to our marriages, we come to an understanding of the total commitment we are making to our spouses when we exchange our wedding vows. Divorce is not an option. What God has brought together, no man can put asunder.

Growing up knowing and accepting unbreakable boundaries has great benefit for us in our everyday lives. Self-imposed rules allow us to navigate comfortably through a world wrought with treacherous temptation. Self-discipline builds strong character. It keeps us honest. It keeps us free from the burdens that come with over indulgence. If we can avoid attachment to material things, we never need to worry about excessive debt. If we can avoid over-consumption, we never need to worry about becoming an alcoholic. If we can control our temper, we never need to worry about reacting in anger, or mistreating anyone. If we can control our desires, we never need to worry about being unchaste, unfaithful or even over-weight.

Discipline comes from the word disciple. By following Christ and the Church He established, we learn self-control. Any mortification we experience through the denial of things we desire can be joined to the suffering of Christ for our redemption and for that of others. So when someone complains the Catholic Church has too many rules, consider the fringes benefits. Obedience to the discipline imposed on us by the Church can help us learn self-control if we live our Faith to the fullest. Practicing self-discipline helps us become responsible citizens, always in control of our actions and emotions.

Memories of John Hartford, Gentle on My Mind

Living in a small Indiana town of under 2000 people offers little opportunity to see big name entertainment locally. In the early 1990’s, our park board of which I am a member converted the old town athletic field into an outdoor amphitheater. The seating was already in place having been constructed of field stone and concrete set into a hillside by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930’s. The uncovered stage was used for our annual Mint Festival which featured three days of mostly local bands.

At the time the stage was new, one of the festival organizers managed the local hardware store. Larry played the bass in a group called the Hesitation Blues Band in the early seventies during his days at Indiana University with a singer named Tad Robinson who went on to have a successful career singing in Chicago-area bands and a few commercials. Tad also had parts in a couple of movies, including Under Siege with Tommy Lee Jones and Steven Seagal. For several years, Larry was able to get his old band mates to reunite on our stage. That was as close as we ever got to big name entertainment until one year when Larry came up with another plan.

In the spring of 1996, I went into the hardware store for something one day and asked Larry how the festival plans were coming. He said, “Do you know who John Hartford is?” I had to think for a minute. The name was familiar. Larry reminded me that John Hartford was the banjo player who appeared each week on a show called the Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour. He was also seen on the Smothers Brothers’ Comedy Hour and was probably best known for having written the song, Gentle on My Mind. Yes, I knew who he was. I remember him wearing a derby hat while playing happy little tunes on the banjo.

Booking John Hartford would be risky. The cost would be several thousand dollars and the open venue layout did not allow for collecting an admission charge. Larry hoped that sponsors and concession revenue would at least allow the festival to break even. I was excited that our little outdoor stage would be graced by someone who was somewhat famous, even though every time I told someone about it, I had to explain who he was.

Thinking I might get an opportunity to rub elbows with somebody famous, I asked Larry if he needed any assistance from us park board people in preparation for Mr. Hartford’s appearance. Larry said he planned to grill steaks for the group at his home before the show, but Hartford was on a strict diet and requested a vegetable tray. I offered to get a vegetable tray and bring it over to the house. Larry said that would be great. Hartford was scheduled to play Sunday evening and I was to bring the tray to Larry’s house about 4 o'clock.

The weekend of the festival was typical June weather, warm and muggy. That Sunday evening, I took my $35 veggie tray and went to the festival grounds to look for Larry. The sky was overcast when I tracked him down. He told me to leave it on his dining room table. The house was open. Larry was a lovable little stocky Italian with long black hair and beard to match. He never seemed too concerned about anything, including being burgled, I guess. His house was indeed open despite the throng of strangers in town. Entering Larry’s house, I saw little evidence of preparations for a celebrity guest. Somewhat disappointed that my donated veggie tray was not going to get me a face-to-face meeting with John Hartford, I placed it on Larry’s table and left.

On my way home, I saw a large tour bus parked by the town water tower. I also saw the sky getting dark in the west. Larry was standing not far from the bus, so I stopped to ask if he was going to need anything else from the park’s standpoint. I also wanted to know if he had a contingency plan in case of rain. Unfortunately, he did not, and about an hour before the performance was to start, the skies opened. It rained and it rained and it rained.

Show time came and went. It was still raining with no sign of stopping. Larry said he was going to go home to make some phone calls. Perhaps he could get permission to hold the concert at the high school. I asked if there was anything I could do to help. He told me to go knock on the door of John Hartford’s bus and tell him he was trying to find an alternate place for them to play. I did so, and a man who I later learned was one of the musicians, opened the door. After I delivered the message, he asked me if there was anywhere they could get some distilled water. I knew of only one store that was open on Sunday evenings and I offered to see if they had any. Apparently, John Hartford drank only distilled water and he requested several gallons. I went to the store and purchased three jugs and took them back to the bus. The gentleman at the bus door offered to pay for them, but I refused. What’s a few more dollars after a $35 veggie tray?

Larry returned a short time later. He looked defeated. His long hair was soaking wet. He was unable to get permission to use the school on such short notice. What about the firehouse, I asked. It was right next door. It wouldn’t hold too many people, but there weren’t too many people left. The fire chief was nearby so I asked him if the performance could be held in his station. He said he could not give the okay without permission of the town board. As is usually the case when the festival is going on, town board members don’t answer their phones – too many complaints apparently. No one of authority could be reached and Larry was running out of options.

By now it was getting late. Most people had gone home, and it was still raining. I went back to Larry and told him the fire station was not going to work out. Out of ideas, we went over the bus to explain the situation. The man who came to the door said, John had been paid and he would really like to perform. Larry had one more idea. He knew the proprietor of a small restaurant and bar on the west side of town. It was closed on Sundays, but Larry called the owner who agreed to open up.

The next problem would be finding an audience. It was about two hours after the original show time. Where was everyone and how does one get the message out that John Hartford would be playing at Muggly’s bar in a half hour? We called as many people as we knew might be interested, and a few who wouldn’t be, just to get bodies in the building. Surprisingly, there were a few hardcore John Hartford fans who had traveled some distance to see his performance. They were still waiting nearby and followed the bus to the bar.

On that dark rainy Sunday evening in June, about two dozen people watched John Hartford and the two musicians who accompanied him for an intimate performance that I remember fondly. Despite my earlier efforts, I had not seen John until the moment he appeared in the barroom. His skin was a pale gray color and he did not look well. It was as if everyone else was in color and he was in black and white. He was thin and gaunt. I would later learn that he was suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Accompanied by a mandolin and stand-up bass, He sang and played the banjo and violin, more appropriately called a ‘fiddle’ in this genre. I suppose his musical style would be described as somewhere between old-timey folk and bluegrass. Hartford relished life on the river in the days of sidewheel steamers, and much of his music had an 1890’s flavor which I grew to appreciate. There was a certain sadness to some of his music. He didn’t say much between songs and smiled only occasionally. The small crowd enjoyed his performance and he seemed to find comfort and strength performing his music.

When it came time for a break, he sat down at a table where some of his CDs where displayed for sale. I perused his recordings and picked out one called No End of Love because it contained Gentle on My Mind, the only song of his that I knew. Larry introduced me to John and I asked him to autograph the artwork label on the CD. His calligraphic signature was itself a piece of art, beautifully inscribed with great care. We exchanged a few pleasantries before he continued his performance. After about an hour and a half, he concluded his time with us and rode off on his bus into the dark rainy night.

My appreciation for his talent grew immensely after I listened to that CD a few times. I only wish I had the talent to adequately describe his ability to take the listener back to another place and time. Two songs in particular are my favorites. Both of them tell stories of sidewheel steamers on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers in the late 1800’s. When the Guiding Star Came to Tell City is the story of the first time the folks in Tell City, Indiana were introduced to “Honest to God” electricity. Hartford uses the vernacular of the period, along with great attention to detail, which allows the listener to feel like he was living through the experience.

This technique is especially effective in The Burning of the Grand Republic, which describes the night when the sidewheel steamer “burned to the water’s edge”. Hartford describes an event that happened near St. Louis on March 13, 1898 when the Mississippi excursion steamboat went up in flames. According to the report that appeared in the New York Times the next day, “Nothing was saved, and Capt. W.H. Thorwegen, his wife, and two children narrowly escaped death.”

Hartford’s account tells of a man “runnin’ at breakneck speed, over the road, past the dog pound, out of breath and he found a policeman on DeKalb corner and quickly turned in the alarm.” “The watchman awoke when he heard the flames, bedding, carpets, painting, railings – too late, he woke up much too late to save the Grand Republic.” Hartford goes on to describe the sky glowing and fleecy clouds turning to vermillion. And the red glare had a brilliance that made the moonlight green. “Even the trees on the Illinois shore stood out in bold relief.” The crowds on the levee “stood as close as they could dare, which was not very, and by twelve thirty, the fire had done its work. And by this late hour, they tried to find Thorwegen, but the captain of the Grand Republic was no where to be found.”

Hartford’s musical imagery contains many more vivid descriptions of the events of that night. Having listened to the song many times, I feel like an eyewitness. I can picture how “Lightning fingers of thirsty flame through layers on layers of dried out paint on filigreed wood curled out of the windows (or ‘windas’ as Hartford says it) eating their way to the roof.” I have seen the eerie look of trees illuminated by a nighttime inferno, but I could never describe them as accurately as Hartford did.

I was at work on June 4, 2001, five years to the month after our special evening with John Hartford, when I heard the radio report of his death. He was a true artist with a God-given talent for painting musical pictures of events long ago. Thank God we did not have video recorders in 1898. The subtle details, described so beautifully by Hartford, would be lost in our contemporary world of thirty-second sound bites. Descriptive writing is becoming a lost art. Today, a person can throw paint at a canvas and declare himself an artist. In my view, an artist is someone with a special talent for doing something the average person is not capable of doing. John Hartford had the ability to transport a person to another place and time through his music. God blessed him in that way. And Larry, the young man who introduced me to John, also left this world a few years later. May they both rest in peace.