Pazdziernik Archive

Veritatis Splendor

[Archive July 11, 2006]

August 6th will be the thirteenth anniversary of John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (“The Splendor of Truth”). In my estimation this is John Paul II’s greatest encyclical letter. The first half is most readable and understandable to anyone with a high school education. (Or it should be!) The second half is more technical and may be harder to understand and digest for “the common man or woman” who is not learned in philosophy or theology or who is new to its terminology, in particular. I was certainly not exempt from these "second half" difficulties.

It was written in a practical manner because

“…with regard to the Church’s moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth.

Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church’s moral teachings are found simply unacceptable; and the Magisterium itself is considered capable of intervening in matters of morality only in order to “exhort consciences” and to “propose values.” In the light of which each individual will independently make his or her decisions and life choices.” (Veritatis Splendor No. 4)

It’s not a stretch to say that if one reads, understands, and gives an effort to follow its principles it will profoundly change one’s life for the better because it addresses “questions of the greatest importance for the Church and for the life of faith of Christians, as well as for the life of society itself.” (VS No. 4)

Two problems in our society and in individuals —“most” would not be an unjust qualifier— is the erroneous notions of conscience and of the widespread idea of “The Fundamental Option.” Veritatis Splendor presents the correct understanding of these and much more.

On conscience:

The relationship between man’s freedom and God’s law is most deeply lived out in the “heart” of the person, in his moral conscience. As the Second Vatican Council observed: “In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically: ‘do this, shun that.’ For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged (cf. Romans 2:14-16).” (VS No. 54)

Far from being a “feeling” it is a practical judgment…

The judgment of conscience is a practical judgment, a judgment which makes known what man must do nor not do, or which assesses an act already performed by him. It is a judgment which applies to a concrete situation the rational conviction that one must love and do good and avoid evil. (VS No. 59)

[I]n the practical judgment of conscience, which imposes on the person the obligation to perform a given act, the link between freedom and truth is made manifest. Presicely for this reason conscience expresses itself in acts of “judgment” which reflect the truth about the good, and not in arbitrary “decisions”. The maturity and responsibility of these judgments —and, when all is said and done, of the individual who is their subject — are not measured by the liberation of the conscience from objective truth, in favor of an alleged autonomy in personal decisions, but, on the contrary, by an insistent search for truth and by allowing oneself to be guided by that truth in one’s actions. (VS No. 61)

Conscience has “limits”…

Conscience is not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes. However, error of conscience can be the result of an invincible ignorance, an ignorance of which the subject is not aware and which he is unable to overcome by himself. (VS No. 62)

What ‘bout those who do not care to form their conscience and yet seem to perform good acts?

[A] good act which is not recognized as such does not contribute to the moral growth of the person who performs it; it does not perfect him and it does not help to dispose him for the supreme good. (VS No. 63)

On “The Fundamental Option”:

Some authors have proposed an even more radical revision of the relationship between person and acts. They speak of a “fundamental freedom”, deeper than and different from the freedom of choice, which needs to be considered if human actions are to be correctly understood and evaluated. According to these authors, the key role in the moral life is to be attributed to a “fundamental option,” brought about by that fundamental freedom whereby the person makes an overall self-determination, not through a specific and conscious decision on the level of reflection, but in a “transcendental” and “athematic” way. …

A distinction thus comes to be introduced between the fundamental option and deliberate choices of a concrete kind of behavior. In some authors this division tends to become a separation, when they expressly limit moral “good” and “evil” to the transcendental dimension proper to the fundamental option, and describe “right” and “wrong” the choices of particular “innerworldly” kinds of behavior: those, in other words, concerning man’s relationship with himself, with others and with the material world. (VS No. 65)

These tendencies are therefore contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself, which sees the fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links that choice profoundly in particular acts. By his fundamental choice, man is capable of giving his life direction and of progressing, with the help of grace, towards his end, following God’s call. But this capacity is actually exercised in the particular choices of specific actions, through which man deliberately conforms himself to God’s will, wisdom and law. It thus needs to be stated that the so-called fundamental option, to the extent that it is distinct from a generic intention and hence one not yet determined in such a way that freedom is obligated, is always brought into play through conscious and free decisions. Precisely fo this reason, it is revoked when man engages his freedom in conscious decisions to the contrary, with regard to morally grave matter. (VS No. 67)

The various theories of “Fundamental Option” can be complex to follow. However, in short, “the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts” (VS No. 70).

It goes without saying that these authoritative papal teachings on "fundamental option" are radically different than "modern secular thought" which can be expressed in phrases (or "slogans") that disregard particular acts like "we all seek peace in our hearts" and "we are all good people deep down inside." It also goes contrary to the "once saved always saved" teachings of some Christian communities. Once again, Veritatis Splendor may be a challenging read but is well worth the effort. You won't be disappointed!

Photo: “Family at the beach”

Paris v. Rome

[Archive July 9,2006]

It looks like Europe is not quite dead yet: Portugal, Germany, Italy and France were the final four FIFA World Cup™ clubs. The Western Roman Empire may have indeed collapsed and transformed into the Middle Ages long ago. However, it seemed to re-emerge once again during the last month or so. Today in Berlin, Italy prevailaed over France 5-3 in penality kicks (after a 1-1 draw after regular time and two overtimes). I'm sure you already know this since like 1 billion people watched the match and I hope that at least some of these 1 billion would have an interest in an "edifying blog" to repeat these events.

I had been pulling for France going into the match. I have no ties to either country. New England has many of both French heritage and Italian heritage. More French in the north; Italian in the south is a good general estimate. My allegiance shifted to Italy after Zinedine Zidane, 34, the French captain, was red-carded and ejected in the first overtime for a vicious and classless head butt to the chest of an Italian player, Marco Materazzi. His ejection left the French squad down a man at a critical time. Zidane is also a good penality shooter but his services were not allowed after the ejection.

I always like to see good sportsmanship and this was an example of poor sportsmanship. It was especially shocking since it came from a veteran, popular, and well-regarded player like Zidane. (Zidane's poor sportsmanship certainly will overshadow the poor sportsmanship of Boston Red Sox's Manny Ramierz who is refusing to attend the annual All-Star Game in Pittsburgh this coming Tuesday although he was the top vote-getter by the fans.)

Congratulation to Italy! I'm sure that Boston's North End and elsewhere will be celebrating well into the night tonight and perhaps for the coming weeks.

Photo: Ben Radford/Getty Images
Tags: World Cup, FIFA, Italy, France, Soccer

Interview With Theologian Jutta Burggraf

[Archive July 4,2006]

Zenit news service posted a nice interview with Jutta Burggraf, a German theologian, on July 3, 2006 from Pamplona, Spain: "Personal Value and the Gold Chains of Society; Interview With Theologian Jutta Burggraf". She is a professor of dogmatic theology at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre in Spain. I am not familiar with her work. However, her answers in the interview reveal a depth that motivates me to seek out her new book "Libertad vivida con la fuerza de la fe" (Freedom Lived with the Strength of Faith). Since it is also Independence Day in the United States (230 years!), I thought that the topic of freedom is most timely.

Q: Your book is entitled "Freedom Lived." Are there freedoms which are not lived?

Burggraf: All people are born as originals, but at times we limit ourselves to be no more than equal copies. Then, we do not correspond to the personal and unique call we have received on entering this world: "Be yourself! Be as God has always thought of you."

Every man can offer the world many surprises; contribute new thoughts, original solutions, unique action. He is capable of living his own life and of being a source of inspiration and support for others.

If a person does not use his legs to walk, we regard him as "odd" or probably sick; but if he does not use his understanding to think, or his will to decide, we are almost unaware of his dangerous state, because we are used to not living at the level of our best possibilities. Often, we do not use the richest and most profound capacity we have: our freedom.

In fact, no one must become an "automaton," without a face or originality. At times, it is good to recover the look of the child, to open ourselves to our own novelty, and that of every person, and thus discover the challenge within each situation. The world will be what we make of it. At least our life is what we make of it.

Q: What specifically are you referring to when you allude to the "subtly tyrannizing" world that it is our lot to live in?

Burggraf: There are "gold chains" in our societies. The tyranny of masses and customs reigns.

It is not difficult to discover a powerful collectivist current that tends to despoil us of that which is in the depth of our being, in order to equalize and quantify people, if not all, at least those who belong to a specific party, a concrete association, a community, a Web page or a golf club.

It is fashionable to sing in unison, to dress with the same clothes, to take recourse to the same pre-fabricated arguments, with the same words, the same look, and even the same smile.

There are people who are not even aware of their chains. They adapt themselves to the general spirit that seems obvious to them. But what they feel, think or say, is not their own; they are the sentiments, thoughts and ready-made phrases that have been published in thousands of newspapers and magazines, on the radio and on the Internet.

As soon as someone begins to think and act on his own and hold an opinion that is different from that generally accepted by the "system" -- which has become closed and does not allow anything that seems to be annoying -- it is simply rejected.

However, we are free, despite the adverse circumstances that can surround and influence us. And not only do we have the right, but also the duty to exercise our freedom.

Precisely today it is more necessary than ever that we be aware of the great richness of our life and seek ways to be "more" people, and not reluctant, frightened and stricken persons.

Q: How does one learn to be free? What is the first step?

Burggraf: Growing up, man discovers gradually that he has an interior space, which is, in some way, at his disposition.

He realizes that, essentially, he does not depend either on his parents, or schoolteachers, or the media, or public opinion. He experiences a space where he is alone with himself, where he is free. He discovers his interior world, his own innermost being.

Only one knows one's innermost: It is the "sanctuary" of the human. I can enter into myself, and no one can seize me there.

When "I am with myself," I readily realize how unnecessary and ridiculous it is to seek others' confirmation and applause. A person's value does not depend on others; it does not depend on the praise of gestures of confirmation that he might or might not receive.

We are more than what we live on the exterior. There is a space in us to which others have no access. It is our "inner homeland," a place of silence and quietness. As long as we don't discover it, we will live in a superficial and confused way, seeking consolation where there is none -- in the external world.

Man is free, when he dwells in his own house. Unfortunately, there are many people who are not "with themselves," but always with others. They do not know how to rest in themselves.

Q: You say that to obey God is source of freedom. What do you mean by this?

Burggraf: God himself, the source of all life, wishes to dwell ever more profoundly in us. From our innermost core, he wishes to give us life in abundance.

In some way or another, every man is called to relive the drama experienced by St. Augustine: "You were within me and I was outside. And outside I was seeking you."

God asks us a minimum of openness, availability and acceptance of his grace: "If you hear his voice today, do not harden your heart." To find God within ourselves, we need -- mysteriously -- "to open the doors" of our house to him.

In other words, in this intimate space of silence and quietness that is in me, where no one can enter except myself, I do not want to be alone. I invite God to come in and to be with me -- and to conduct my life. Then, my self-determination consists in doing what he tells me.

When God dwells in me, I am happy to "be with myself" and "to go into my own house." I will never be alone, but accompanied and protected by him who loves me most. It is not necessary for me to resolve the small and big problems of each day. …

Obedience means, in its origin, that Christ governs us. He it is who takes the helm of our bark. He does not add himself to our actions; he is at the very core of freedom. It is what the evangelist tells us: "Behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."

I hope to find somewhere further nuance and distinction on her comments about the “subtly tyrannizing" of the "gold chains" in our societies. The mass media and lack of authentic education certainly contribute to an aggressive “conformity”, although Prof. Burggraf does not use that term in the interview. In cultures things like dress and language certainly need a degree of conformity for sanity. Our institutions like courts, places of business and churches require likeness in certain aspects for the common good and for freedom. Only so much can be communicated through an interview format. Nevertheless, I understand the “drift” of what she is proposing.

The fact that many no longer join groups, associations or have community involvement but rather seek to be an “army of one” —but all the same— perhaps is a symptom of most gullible “victims” of the “powerful collectivist current”.

Photo: “Mother and Daughter Portrait” © Pascal Genest
Zenit code: ZE06070320
Tags: Freedom, Navarre, Jutta Burggraf

Barbershop

[Archive July 3, 2006]

Well, it's summer vacation time. So, I decided to break out of drama and action movies and get something different. I decided on Barbershop (2002 MGM; Rated PG-13 for language, sexual content and brief drug references), in part, because David Letterman joked a few years back that Pope John Paul II spent his summer vacation watching Barbershop 2.

Calvin Palmer (Ice Cube) inherits his South Side Chicago Barbershop from his father. It is the local gathering place of the neighborhood community. After mounting debt he decides to sell the barbershop to loan shark Lester Wallace (Keith David) who is going to turn it into a "gentleman's club." He regrets this decision and tries to buy it back but the price to re-purchase is at the price of extortion by Wallace.

One sub-plot, among several, has J.D. (Anthony Anderson) and Billy (Lahmard Tate) stealing an ATM machine. They prove to be a great comedy team along the lines of Carvelli and Murray from Welcome Back Kotter. For the DVD “extras” we learn that the director and producer cut out all the scenes that touched upon “religion/church/faith”. Unfortunately, they decided to leave in the misuse of sexuality and language. Regardless of these flaws, this film had an overall positive message. I was pleased that stereotypes were minimized in favor of showing the human condition of a community and different viewpoints.

In the barbershop, the gang learns from BET (Black Entertainment Television) that some are seeking some sort of “reparation” for the past enslavement of African-Americans. Ricky Jones (Michael Elay) is the two-time “street smart” felon. “Old man” Eddie (Cedric the Entertainer) has a chair at the barbershop and is constantly telling stories in the first person. (He eats and sleeps at the shop but does not seem to cut much hair.) Jimmy James (Sean Patrick Thomas) is a didactic Northwestern college student.

Ricky: Jews did not get reparations. Holocaust survivors got reparations.

Eddie: We had affirmative action and welfare. Is that not reparations? Is that not reparations?

Ricky: We don’t need reparations. All right. We need restraint. Some disciplne. Don’t go out and buy a Range Rover when you’re livin’ with your momma. And pay you momma some rent. And can we please please please try and teach our kids something other than the Chronic album. And please black people be on time for something other than “free before eleven" at the club.

Jimmy: You know that was a surprising passionate and well articulated argument.

Ricky: You mocking me?

Jimmy: Not at all sir. I applaud your virtuosity.

Ricky: You know what schoolboy for your information a scallop is a shell fish

Jimmy: No I’m afraid it isn’t.

Ricky: No. I’m afraid it is because it is a mollusk before it come to you dinner plate it got two shells wrapped around it just like a clam.

The barbershops of my youth seem to be quickly becoming be a thing of the past in favor of the likes of "sterile" places like "Great Cuts" and "Supercuts" but they can still be found. Eve plays a very likeable Terri Jones. She should stick to acting and forget music. “Now, who drank my apple juice?”

Photo: Cedric the Entertainer as Eddie (©2002 MGM)
Tags: Barbershop, Ice Cube, Cedric the Entertainer, Eve

Superman Returns

[Archive June 29, 2006]

We had a chance to see Superman Returns today with Brandon Routh as Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. This movie is very much like the 1978 "classic" Superman: The Movie with Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman. It is part action film and part romance like the 1978 version. It had some drama but not much because we know that in the end Superman will save the day.

It is not a remake of the 1978 film. Rather it is more of a continutaion of the story: A "Superman V" , perhaps? Clark's foster father has died. Clark returns to earth after a five year absence. In the five year period, Lois found another man, Richard and they are living together in co-habitation arrangement and have a child Jason. Without giving away any spoilers, it seems that Jason is indeed Superman Jr.. (Can you say "sequel"? or "Superman VI"?) Kevin Spacey plays an excellent Lex Luthor. I'm not a big Spacey fan but he makes an outstanding performance in this movie. And Kate Bosworth plays a very likeable Lois Lane.

The score by John Ottman keeps John Williams' original —and most excellent —theme and adds new music to it unlike the three Superman sequels that followed the 1978 movie.

Aside from Lois' relationships, there are no morally problematic items to note. The violence persented is in line with a comic book action movie. The George Reeves Superman from television was for "Truth, justice and the American Way." Routh's Superman is for "Truth, justice and all those other things." "Those other things" are unnamed and it may be a small quibble to note that the "American way" is dropped in Superman Returns. I can't recall how Christopher Reeve's Superman treated "these other things." I recommend this movie and am sure that it will be the big summer hit.

Image: Superman Returns ©2006 Warner Bros.

A New Diaspora

[Archive June 25, 2006]

St. Michael The Archangel Parish, a Polish parish of the Archdiocese of Boston, celebrated her Centennial earlier this year. At 2pm on Sunday June 25th it was suppressed as a parish as part of an Archdiocesan-wide “reconfiguration plan.” Here’s my post. One pass. No edits.

It is difficult to express in words the alternative society that St. Michael’s had nurtured for generations. Simply pointing to “Polish traditions and customs” does not go to the heart of this alternative society. The Eastern Spirituality although attenuated somewhat was still evident “to the end.” As a parish we are not perfect —because we are made up of men and women — and as every family we have our tensions and disagreements and so forth. However, the saying “blood is thicker than water”, not in ethnic terms, but in terms of our parish certainly can be readily applied. Charity, ora et labora, piety, family were built up and sustained.

The most important thing to learn as Catholics, in my estimation, is that the Triune God is a God of unity, peace, serenity and love. Today, which was for some a “devastating day”, was for others, a day of peace and serenity. I certainly don’t want to build us up by putting any other down — this is not my intention. However, I was once again so thankful for the grace and gift to be a Catholic.

As Catholics, we are not Episcopalians whereby the “bishops” run the church. We are not Presbyterians whereby “presbyters” run the church. We are not non-denominational whereby a local pastor “calls the shots” so to speak. As Catholics we are united to the local Bishop who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Saint Peter. We have a clear line of authority which is liberating. Yes liberating, not oppressive! As Catholics we don’t answer to Scripture, we answer to the hierarchical authority that Our Lord willed for his Church.

(Authentic Catholic teachings, practices, and discipline are certainly in accord with God’s revealed Word both oral and written. Those who claim to answer to “scripture alone” … well we see the disunity that sadly results.)

The Catholic Church is much greater than an individual parish. Yes, the pain of a parish suppression is real indeed. If we were non-denominational or otherwise we would either go it alone during difficult times (lack of generous response to God’s callings, for example) or seek an affiliation with another community. Instead, we have other wonderful Catholic parishes to welcome our “new diaspora” and in some way “ease the pain” of a true loss.

Pastors have tried to anticipate this pain and ease it with foresight by reminding us that a “the church is not a building”, “the Church is a community of faith” or “the church is in your heart.” These sentiments are certainly well intended and are true if properly understood. However, as Catholics, we understand that “matter matters”. Our Lord used matter to heal (mud to heal the blind) and water for baptism, and bread and wine for the Holy Eucharist and so forth. With this in mind, it is not “superstition” or “lack of faith” that many would “cling” to a parish church. The local parish is a sacramental sign of Christ and of His Kingdom in this world. It is very edifying to see how deeply ingrained this sacramental dimension is in the life of Catholics through their “attachment” to a particular parish community.

Read local reporting: Tears, vigil mark last day for St. Michael's Church

Photo: St. Michael’s Class of 1944
Tags: Saint Michael, Lynn Massachusetts, Catholic, Polonia

The hug seen ‘round the world

[Archive June 23, 2006]

I'm sure you’ve most likely heard of the story of the midshipman who hugged President Bush this past Monday during commencement exercises at the United States Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. Well, it turns out that Gabriel Whitney, 25, is a local celebrity™. That’s right, he is from Nashua, New Hampshire!

Gabe Whitney had carved his niche at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy long before “The Hug.”

For one thing, the Nashua resident had notched the most demerits in academy history for offenses ranging from skipping classes to going AWOL from the Kings Point, N.Y., campus.

“Why not?” Whitney, 25, said when asked if he was proud of the accomplishment.

“I don’t need grades to measure my life story.”

Whitney, a 6-foot-7-inch, 260-pound power forward, also scored more than 1,100 points, 13th most in school history, leading the basketball team to three Skyline Conference championships and a Division III Sweet 16 appearance.
….

But you have to know Whitney, a good-natured bear of a young man, and his six-year struggle to make it to commencement, to understand that all this, even the presidential hug, is secondary to getting his diploma.

In fact, the hug Whitney gave President Bush wasn’t the one that meant the most to him or his family at the ceremony. It was the hug he gave Vice Admiral Joseph D. Stewart, the academy superintendent, and a man who believed in him when so many others didn’t through Whitney’s years of academic struggles.

“The admiral has been such a gracious presence in Gabe’s life,” said his mother, Quincy Whitney.

“He was in Gabe’s corner, and that’s the reason why he graduated,” he said.

Stewart referred to Whitney’s long journey to graduation before President Bush’s keynote address.

The mention of Whitney’s name brought warm cheers from the 202 graduating midshipmen, and from the strong contingency of Whitney’s family and friends on hand.

Members of the Whitney family wore T-shirts designed by Gabe’s sister, Meranne. The front of the shirts read: 4,872 demerits (“painful”); four and a half years on academic restriction (“wounding”); two visits to the committee that weighs student expulsions (“agonizing”); two reprieves from the admiral (“necessary”); and six years of school with only an undergraduate degree to show for it (“humbling”).

The back of the shirt read, “Passing all licensing exams, first try: Priceless.”

“They really made light of – I don’t know what you’d call it – I wouldn’t call it accolades,” Whitney said of the T-shirts.

But Whitney knows a lot of people were pulling for him, and he said he appreciates all the support he received.

As for the hug itself: Whitney said he did it out of exuberance and because President Bush raised his arms first, which the midshipmen said he took as an invitation.

A White House spokesman later released a statement that President Bush thought the bear hug was “funny.”

“A bear hug is the only kind of hug I know how to give,” Whitney said. “I don’t know how to give a cheesy little hug.”

“Plus, if anyone in the world could use a hug, I’m sure the president could.” (City resident shares academic accomplishment with world By Patrick Meighan, Nashua Telegraph, June 23,2006)

It’ looks like Whitney struggled with lack of maturity and perhaps “distractions” to take his education at the Merchant Marine Academy as seriously as he should have. However, he expressed that his graduation diploma after six years was a real achievement. At 25, he may consider himself “just a kid” as I know many others in his age range do.

Next Monday Gabriel Whitney is scheduled to be on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Photo: Charles Dharapah/Associated Press
Tags: President Bush, Gabriel Whitney

Rock you like a hurricane?

[Archive June 18, 2006]

Before Game 5 on Wednesday (June 14th), I was getting ready to post about the Carolina Hurricanes winning the Stanley Cup for the first time. They had led the best-of-seven series 3-1, going into game 5. The series is now tied at 3-3. Game seven will be Monday night at 8pm ET in Raleigh, North Carolina. The last two games have been really good back and forth hockey.

My pre-season pick was the Vancouver Canucks. Now, I’m rooting for the Hurricanes since they used to be a local team. The Hurricanes were formerly known as the New England Whalers and Hartford Whalers from 1971 until 1997. The Whalers joined the NHL beginning with the 1979-1980 season. In 1997 they relocated to North Carolina and became the Carolina Hurricanes.

The World Cup and the Red Sox are the focus of New England sports for the moment. Here’s a summary of the 2006 NHL Stanley Cup series to date:

Game 1 Carolina 5 Edmonton 4
Game 2 Carolina 5 Edmonton 0
Game 3 Edmonton 2 Carolina 1
Game 4 Carolina 2 Edmonton 1
Game 5 Carolina 3 Edmonton 4 (OT)
Game 6 Edmonton 4 Carolina 0
Game 7 Carolina 3 Edmonton 1

For a refresher, here’s a list of recent Stanley Cup Champions:

2006 Carolina Hurricanes
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning
2003 New Jersey Devils
2002 Detroit Red Wings
2001 Colorado Avalanche
2000 New Jersey Devils
1999 Dallas Stars
1998 Detroit Red Wings
1997 Detroit Red Wings

It might be difficult to get excited about hockey late in June. However a game seven of the Stanley Cup finals should be made an exception!

Update June 19, 2006: Congratulations to the former Hartford Whalers! Stanley Cup Champions.

Photo: Mike Commodore (22) and Ryan Smyth (94) in Game 6 Getty Images
Tags: Stanley Cup, Carolina Hurricanes, Edmonton Oilers