Monday, November 30, 2009

About the Knights of Columbus, Charity, Food, and Miracles

I'm not among the people who, consciously or not, assume that simply throwing money at a problem solves the problem.

On the other hand, with a few exceptions - like Europe's feudal period and a few local economies today - people have used some sort of money to handle the exchange of goods and services for the last few thousand years. Other systems have been used, like barter, but tend to be inconvenient. Let's say that a fair exchange for a cow was two and a half goats. Have you ever tried to split a goat?

So money is an important part of just about everything. Including, often as not, solving problems.

But, money alone isn't important: it's what money can buy. That, and making sure you buy something that makes sense: but that's another topic, sort of.

Knights of Columbus, Throwing Money at a Problem: Plus Volunteers and Good Sense

I think this is a good idea:
"Knights of Columbus Announces $1 Million for U.S. and Canadian 'Food for Families' Program"

"With the number of Americans and Canadians at risk of hunger far higher than usual and the number of those planning to give to charity at this time of year lower than usual, the Knights of Columbus has committed $1 million and legions of active volunteers to its 'Food for Families' program to collect food and financially support food banks in the United States and Canada this winter.

"Statistics released by the USDA show nearly 50 million Americans experienced 'food insecurity' last year, while new numbers in Canada show those using food banks has increased by 18 percent in the past year.

"The program encourages each state jurisdiction in the United States and each province jurisdiction in Canada to work with their local parish churches and other public places to collect food for food banks in their area. Those states and provinces in which a significant number of councils participate will then be allocated a portion of the $1 million fund for food banks in their areas...."
(Knights of Columbus press release, November 25, 2009)
An important point here is that, although Knights of Columbus's geographic organization follows state and provincial lines, and the K. of C. work (well) within the law, the Knights of Columbus isn't a government operation, and this isn't a government program.

It's run by people who are on the ground where the money and volunteer hours are being spent: and who know both what the situation is, and what they're doing.

Here in central Minnesota, most of us are doing okay, under the circumstances: but we won't have to look very hard to find folks who can use a bit of help with food this winter.

Yeah, "we." I'm part of the Knights of Columbus, and yes: I'm biased. I think the K. of C. does a good job.

"Trust, But Verify"1

That Knights of Columbus press release gave a few numbers, so I did a little checking.

I'm always - not suspicious, but wary - when outfits use big, round numbers. Like "a million." A million dollars isn't quite the big deal it used to be, but it's still a sizable wad of cash.

But, just how far will that million dollars go?

I did a little figuring.

According to the USDA, around 50,000,000 people in America experienced "food insecurity" last year. Take $1,000,000, evenly spread around, and you've got about 20¢ per person. That doesn't sound like much.

But it's a start.

More from that press release:
"...'Food for Families' is one of the many projects in the Knights of Columbus 'Neighbors Helping Neighbors' initiative. The initiative began at a summit on volunteerism as a response to the economic crisis, which the Knights organized in New York City in February. That summit drew leaders from scores of the nation’s top charitable organizations, including: The Salvation Army, Volunteers of America, United Way, Catholic Charities, Points of Light, the National Fraternal Congress, and scores of other groups...."
(Knights of Columbus press release, November 25, 2009)
However will we manage, without someone from the government to tell us what to do? Somehow, I think we'll manage.

Back to that 20¢ per person thing: With other charitable heavyweights, like United Way and Volunteers of America; and volunteers from the 9,300 local Knights of Columbus councils in America and and roughly 2,100 in Canada; I think there may be more than 20¢ for each hungry person at the end of the day.

But, what pitiful pittance can be purchased with but one score pennies?

Two Cans of Soup, 10 Slices of Bread, Peanut Butter and Some Carrots

Even with the relatively low prices that America's agribusiness makes possible for food, not all that much. But let's say that you put a few piles of those pennies: $19 worth.

I found a place (meijer.com) that sells Campbell's "Split Pea with Ham & Bacon" cans (11.5 ounce) at $19.00 a dozen. That's just under $1.59/can, or roughly $3.17 for two cans. I picked that soup, since it's one I'm familiar with. In this family, a bowl of that soup, two slices of bread, some peanut butter, and most of a carrot make a meal.

At about 2 ½ servings per can, two cans of that soup would make a meal for a family of five, if someone threw in 10 slices of bread and some carrots. Not bad for $3.17. The would million dollars would buy soup for over 300,000 families.

Loaves and Fishes and 20 Cents Per Person

You've probably heard about the time that Jesus of Nazareth started with five loaves and the two fish, fed thousands of people, and had "twelve wicker baskets full of fragments" after everybody had eaten their fill. (Mark 8:43. The whole 'loaves and fishes' account shows up twice in the book: Mark 8:1-10; 6:31-44)

When I was growing up, people who wanted to be taken seriously talked about how people must have really brought their own food, and decided it'd be nice to share. Maybe so, but that would mean that over 5,000 people had been almost inhumanly reticent about eating their sack lunches. (Mark 8:2)

I'm willing to apply Occam's Razor here, and take the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. I think that the man who identified himself as "I AM," who later experienced death by torture, and didn't stay dead, took five loaves and two fishes - and fed thousands of people with them.

With twelve baskets of crumbs and crusts left over.

Miracles2 are cool. But I rather doubt that we're supposed to wait around for a miracle to handle situations we can take care of more-or-less on our own initiative.

Like sharing with others, when we've got food or other necessary supplies: and others don't.

Finally, another (mercifully brief) quote from that press release. Supreme Knight Carl Anderson was talking about the K.C. program, but I think this is a good idea in general: "...People may not be able to give a lot of money to Charity this Christmas, but many can give a can of soup to help their neighbors...."

(Adapted and expanded from an article for the December K of C Sauk Centre Bulletin, Bishop Busch council number 4863, Sauk Centre, Minnesota.)

Related posts: News and views:
1You may have heard that the phrase, "trust, but verify," was used by former President Ronald Reagan. I've run into the assertion that it's 'really' a Russian proverb: "Доверяй, но проверяй," pronounced something like "doveryai, no proveryai" in American English, using the Latin alphabet.

This could be a case of someone being like Star Trek's ensign Checkov, for whom everything was invented in Russia. Or, President Ronald Reagan might have taken a phrase which he could be reasonably certain was already familiar to his audience, and which communicated the idea he wanted to express.

I did a little checking.

"Доверяй, но проверяй," actually does mean "trust but verify" in Russian.

And, President Reagan (among others) said it. The president was speaking to a number of people at the time, including the Soviet Union's General Secretary Gorbachev: who might reasonably be expected to both understand Russian, and remember some Russian proverbs.

Reagan had summarized a "famous tale" about the swan, the crawfish, and the pike. I don't know what the odds are that you're familiar with it: Ivan Krylov's work may not be near the center of everybody's cultural radar screen.

Anyway, Reagan went on for a bit, then said this:
"...But the importance of this treaty transcends numbers. We have listened to the wisdom in an old Russian maxim. And I'm sure you're familiar with it, Mr. General Secretary, though my pronunciation may give you difficulty. The maxim is: Dovorey no provorey -- trust, but verify...."
"Remarks on Signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty"
December 8, 1987
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Archives
While I'm on the general topic, I've run into the assertion that Ronald Reagan's reputation as 'the great communicator' was based on nothing more than his repeating lines out of movies.

It's true, the American president did co-star with a chimp: in "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951). Before he entered politics, Reagan appeared in quite a few movies and television shows, from "Love Is on the Air" (1937) to "Death Valley Days" (8 episodes, 1964-1965). There's a pretty good filmography of Mr. Reagan at IMDB.com.

After memorizing lines for about three decades, I'd be surprised if he didn't remember a few. And, was able to use his memory to pull up a pre-written quote when the occasion called for it.

2A word about miracles.

First, I think they happen. A miracle is:
"A sign or wonder, such as a healing or the control of nature, which can only be attributed to divine power. The miracles of Jesus were messianic signs of the presence of God's kingdom"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glosssary, more at 547)
Second, I don't think that everything that might seem miraculous - like my desk lamp working reliably - is a "miracle." One of my favorite quotes is in a what the author called a sort of contemporary fairy tale:
" 'Your mistake is to think that the little regularities we have observed on one planet for a few hundred years are the real unbreakable laws....' "
(Grace Ironwood, Chapter 17.4, "That Hideous Strength" C. S. Lewis (1946))
People who want, desperately it seems, to believe that all this talk about God isn't so are probably still insisting that dozens - hundreds - of people lied through their teeth in order to endure treatment that's strictly prohibited by the Geneva Convention and UN human rights laws these days. And, in many cases, to die rather unpleasantly.

The alternative is to assume that someone named Jesus, from a Podunk town called Nazareth, was publicly (and messily) executed, and then buried. And that, a few days later, he got out of his tomb, made the rounds of his (astonished) followers, gave them their orders, and left. For the time being. (Matthew 28:19, 20)

Me? I assume that Jesus of Nazareth was who - and what - He said He was. Quite a few people have said that they were God. Jesus convinced a set of fairly hard-headed people from a wide swath of social and economic groups that he was the Son of God.

And, more to the point, showed up for some serious face time to re-energize them and give them marching orders: after he had been killed. Not as a ghost. As a living, eating man. (Luke 24, 41)

Yeah: I'm willing to assume that Jesus was who He said he was. Specifically, "I AM." (John 8:58)

Sunday, November 29, 2009

First Sunday in Advent

Readings for December 29, 2009, First Sunday in Advent:

1st Sunday of Advent 2009

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
November 29, 2009

Advent developed in the Middle Ages by an analogy with Lent. In some places, Advent was a forty-day period much like Lent. Advent began on Nov. 11th and sometimes was called "St. Martin's Fast." After some time Advent became the four Sunday period of time as we know it in the Western Church.

The Church, it seems, never really determined what Advent should be. Should it be penitential? Should it be joyful? There seems that there is no mention of a penitential character of a likeness to Lent in the liturgical documents, concerning Advent. Nevertheless, violet vestments are worn, and the Gloria is not used. Flowers are not permitted in Church except on Gaudete Sunday. I read too, that musical instruments are to be used sparingly. I suppose that means no Pokka Masses. This shouldn't seem to me to be new revelation, but it shows how much can be forgotten over the course of the year.

The Norms for the Celebration of the Church Year states: Advent has a two-fold character: As a season to prepare for Christmas when Christ's first coming is remembered; as a season when that remembrance directs the mind and heart to await Christ's Second Coming at the end of time. You will remember how Father covered the Four Last Things the last four weeks or so and you probably thought that would be the end of that for a while, but here the first Sunday of the Church year and we hear of looking forward to the Second Coming of Christ, at the end of time. So Advent is to be a period for devout and joyful expectation.

The message of this First Sunday of Advent is; Prepare for the glorious Coming of the Lord. The Focus is on the Parousia. The first reading is from Jeremiah. It is one of the few joyful sections of Jeremiah.

Today's selection recalls the prophecy made by Nathan that the dynasty of David would last forever. This promise was handed down in Hebrew tradition even though it contradicted the experience of the people: Most of the kings after David were corrupt, immoral, and/or worthless. Yet the hope is handed down: A righteous ruler would come from David's line.

The first book of the New Testament to be written was 1st Thessalonians, written about the year 51. Remember that an important part of the "Good News" of the primitive Church was the hope of and imminent Second Coming of Christ.

Some of the Thessalonians had died. The living wondered whether the deceased would rise, first (when the Lord returned in glory) or whether the living would be glorified first. They were beginning to worry about when the Parousia would happen.

Paul tells the Thessalonians that the dead will rise, first, then the living will be glorified, then all will be caught up into Christ. Today, however, he simply exhorts the people to have faith and to show it in their lives by virtuous living.

The Gospel relates several catastrophes which would be "signs" of the end. Elsewhere in the Gospels, the message is that the generation alive at the time of Jesus would not pass away "until all these things are accomplished." In other words, we don't look for any new "signs," for they have already happened.

What remains is for us to watch and to pray and never give into laziness (of Faith) or to anxieties of carousing. The end will come suddenly, when we least expect it. Therefore, we should be vigilant at all times. For us, this means "stay in a state of grace" Never give in to sin. Be aware that each day may be your last. That should not be depressing for a Christian, for we look for a glorious life with Christ after we leave this world. Father Groeschel would say, "We're waiting already!"

Hope for a Christian is not for this world. We hope for and work for a just economic system, for the dignity of all peoples, for peace, for and end to evil and violence., But while we zealously work to make this a better world, our real hope must be focused on the world to come, on our Eternal Life. All things must be seen in that context. And all our anxieties and sufferings must be seen as a share in the cross of Christ, which will inevitably lead to a CROWN of GLORY.
More:

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Feeling Forgiven: My Faith and Emotional Perks

Earlier today, I said that it wasn't 'warm fuzzy feelings' that induced me to become a Catholic. That's true enough, but there are emotional perks to being Catholic, now and again.

Not that I'd let my emotional state dictate what I believe. I use my central nervous system for thinking, and my endocrine system for feeling: not the other way around.

Still, like I said, there's an emotional side to my faith.

Take Mary, for example.

I had a soft spot in my heart for the mother of my Lord, long before I converted to Catholicism. It took a lot of guts for her to say 'let it be done' when she got that assignment. (Luke 1:26-38)

Then, there was that time at Cana, when she told servers at a wedding feast: "Do whatever he tells you." And then Jesus performed His first miracle. (John 2:1-10)

And no, Catholics don't worship Mary. At least, we're specifically told not to. Some of us don't take orders too well: but what can I say? We're human. Our attitude toward Mary - and the other saints - is one of veneration, not worship. (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1154, 1674, 2132)

Mary's got quite a few titles. The church my family and I go to is "Our Lady of the Angels" - which is a reference to Mary's title, "Queen of angels." She's also called "Model of motherhood," "Comfort of the troubled," "Refuge of sinners," "Mother of good counsel," and "Mirror of Justice." And that's just scratching the surface. (see "The Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary" on the USCCB website)

The other Catholic church in town, St. Paul's, like many others, has a few statues of Mary. Including this portable one:


That sign says, in part, "...The purpose of the 'traveling pilgrim statue' is to honor Mary and give glory to God, with the theme 'to Jesus through Mary'...." November 13, 2009.

My family has never signed up for having the "traveling pilgrim statue" in our home. But we do have a statue of Our Lady on one window. Actually, there aren't many rooms in the house where there isn't some reminder of our faith. There's even a statue of Mary in the garage - temporarily.

There's a picture of the Last Supper in the room where I'm working, a couple of Mary and Child pictures in the kitchen, crucifixes here and there - you get the idea.

I like it. I've never been able to understand why people don't put reminders of their faith in their homes, as reminders to themselves. I know that there are people like that: my parents' home was largely devoid of religious symbols. Their explanation was that a person's life should be sign enough of that person's faith.

That's okay: but I've found that it's easier to live my faith if I get frequent reinforcement.

Or, look at it this way: how many kids who are nuts about some rock, country, or movie star don't have a picture or two of that performer on display in their room? Sure: 'it's not the same thing.'

Then there's the mix of feelings I have about Confession. Or, if you prefer, the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation. (Catechism, 1420-1498, for starters) I don't particularly enjoy going to someone and admitting just how much I've failed to live as I should since the last time at Confession.

On the other hand, I know that I should get used to the idea of facing my Creator now, while body and soul are connected. (Catechism 1021, 1022, and elsewhere) That's one reason why, although we've got the option (locally, at least) of remaining on the other side of a screen from the priest, I opt for a face-to-face with Jesus' agent.

I can't honestly say that I enjoy all of that. But, it's good for me. And, once in a while, I "feel forgiven." Not that it matters how I feel: but it's pleasant when emotions are in sync with knowledge.


Forgiven. November 13, 2009.

That's not me, by the way: I haven't had that much hair on the top of my head since my mid-teens.

Related post:

Why Did I Convert to Catholicism?

I'm a Catholic.

By choice.

I was born into a family that belonged to a perfectly nice, mainstream Protestant denomination: one that was known for its music. (No, not Baptist: I'll get to that.)

Whats, Whys and Wherefores That Didn't Matter

I wasn't "rejecting beliefs that my parents forced on me." What they taught me was, for the most part, reasonable - and still a part of my faith. I think it helped that my father had been brought up in a 'cultural Catholic' family, and had remembered some of what he had been taught at church.

And I didn't switch churches as a polite gesture to the family I married into.

There are a few more reasons why I didn't convert:
  • A warm fuzzy feeling
    • There are plenty of 'feel good' churches and cultural institutions
      • Whose members don't have the rules Catholics should follow
  • The music
    • There's some beautiful music in Catholic churches
    • But if I chose a church for its music, I might be a Southern Baptist now
  • To be "spiritual"
    • Near the mark
      • But not in the 'so heavenly-minded he's no earthly good' sense
  • To advance my career or connect with the community
    • Not likely
  • Out of my life-long interest in the sciences
    • Near the mark again
      • But not because I think that the sciences answer questions like "why are we here?"
So: why did I convert?

What You Believe: It's Your Decision

Before going further, please note: You don't have to be a Catholic. I'm not trying to force you to convert. (How could I?)

You don't have to believe anything in this post - or this blog. My responsibility ends when I've shared what's so.

Jesus, Peter, Popes, and Me

Back to "why did I convert?"

The short answer is that I became convinced that
  • God
    • Exists
    • Cares about people
      • Why, I probably can't understand
        • See the book of Job
          • And God's responses, when Job demanded an explanation
    • Came personally / sent His Son to save me and everybody else
      • I don't understand the Trinity, either
        • Which is, partly, why it's called a mystery
  • Jesus the Christ
    • Died for my sins
      • And everybody else's
    • Established an organization
      • And put Peter in charge of it
    • Has been taking an active interest in His outfit since then
  • The authority given Peter has been handed down over the last nearly-two-millennia
  • The building down the street is a local unit in an organization which is
    • Rooted in eternity
    • Maintained by the grace of God
    • Established by a member of the Trinity
Like I said, you don't have to believe that: But I'd recommend doing so.

There's more, like my assumption that objective reality exists: and that I'm not imagining that the whole universe - and you - are really there. I've never been that 'sophisticated.'

How Did a Nice Protestant Boy Get Mixed Up With Those Catholics?

Like just about everybody else, as a teen and young adult I started re-evaluating my beliefs. And stayed with the church my parents belonged to.

I was intrigued, though, by the wild claims I heard and read from other sources: about those terribly evil and oppressive (or misguided and deluded by evil oppressors) people called Catholics. Maybe you haven't heard of "the whore of Babylon:" if so, you haven't missed much. The area I grew us in was, I learned later, a particularly anti-Catholic pocket of America.

Although some of the artwork in Catholic churches in my area was (in my view) garish and crude: I couldn't find evidence for the sort of diabolical chicanery I kept hearing about.

The mis-match between the crazy stories and the Catholic churches I observed might not have resulted in my conversion.

Yeah, a Woman was Involved

But then I met a young woman who was of the 'I didn't realize people like her existed' variety. We got married.

Before marriage, I had to agree to a few things: including seeing to it that our children, if any, would be raised as Catholics. Fair enough: but that meant that, before I said, "yes," I'd have to find out a lot about Catholicism and the Catholic Church.

It was quite a learning curve. Turns out, a little of what I thought I knew (remember, I didn't believe the "whore of Babylon" stories) was, simply, not true. Much of the rest had been true, once, sort of: about four centuries back.

Then, there was the matter of contraceptives. I really didn't want Catholic teaching about that to be right. So, I bought a copy of Humanae Vitae (English translation), and started reading.

Then I re-read parts of it.

Frustrating: I could reject the arguments for not putting up barriers to sharing myself fully with my wife. But if I did so, I'd have to reject ideas that I really didn't (and don't) want to throw out. Like the existence of objective reality, cause and effect, the existence of a person who created everything else - including the universe we live in - and the validity of historical records.

That's not a prioritized list, by the way.

So, grudgingly, I accepted the idea that the Catholic Church, some of the best minds over the last two millennia - and God - were right, and that I hadn't been.

The first two I might have been willing to defy. God, not so much. I'm a little too aware of my finite abilities, to go toe-to-toe with Omniscience and Omnipotence.

So, I agreed that I'd be part of a Catholic family. Specifically, the husband and (God willing) father. Which brought up that "wives, obey your husband" thing in Ephesians. Some jerks use that as an excuse to make their wives into something between a pet dog and a live-in housemaid.

Me? I'd read the rest of that instruction:
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her"
(Ephesians 5:25)
Remember what happened to Jesus? After hours of the sort of torture that kills most people, he carried a load of wood to the spot where he was nailed to it, and left to die. That's how Christ loved the church: and that's what I'm expected to do for my wife, if the occasion calls for it.

God willing, I won't have to go through that. But I knew what I was signing up for. And, believe that I'll have to have what I've done examined in the particular judgment. Which is another topic. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1021, 1022, for starters)

That was over a quarter-century ago. My wife and I got to raise the four of our six children who survived until birth, and have seen one of our children married. So far.

And, somewhere along the line, about 20 years ago, I converted to Catholicism. Partly - mostly? - for the reasons I wrote about in "Firebase Earth" (April 5, 2009).

God, Science, and Me

I've had a lively interest in science since at least my elementary-school days. Or, at any rate, in finding out how the universe is put together, and how things work. First, like so many kids, I was interested in dinosaurs: which led to my interest in the evolution of life. Which isn't as anti-God as we're supposed to feel it is (June 29, 2009, for starters) More about that some of those "related posts," below.

I grew up in America, so I know that we're supposed to believe that faith and science, reason and religion, are supposed to be about as compatible as fire and water. Well, I've heard that people in some cultures are convinced that if they're photographed, the photographer will have captured their soul. Every culture seems to have its quirky little beliefs.

Thanks to my interest in both the sciences and history, I knew that many of the people who helped lay the foundations for contemporary sciences were Catholics: like Nicholas Copernicus and Johann Gregor Mendel.

On the other hand, there are folks like Ussher, who didn't like what scientists were saying, and made up a (remarkably clever) counter-claim.

Me? I don't think that ignorance is next to godliness, or that faith in God requires me to stop thinking. And, I certainly don't have a problem with God having apparently decided to make a creation that's bigger than what I'd have thought necessary.

I do think that it's possible to learn something about a person, by studying the things that person has made. Just as students of literature can learn about an author from books the author has written, I think it's possible to learn something about God from what he's made.

That's an idea which can be ridiculed. For example, "...the great British biologist and atheist JBS Haldane once said, when asked whether studying biology had taught him anything about the Creator: 'I'm really not sure, except that He must be inordinately fond of beetles.'..." (The Independent, June 15, 2004) The same might be said of bats and cockroaches.

Cracks like that are a good reminder to not get too certain about personal speculations.

On the other hand, I don't see the harm in sharing a few things that occurred to me. How valid any of these are, I have no idea. God seems to like
  • Spirals
    • You see the same forms repeated in
      • Sunflowers
      • Whirlpools
      • Hurricanes
      • Galaxies
  • Simplicity
    • Everything seems to be made out of a relatively small number of fundamental units
  • Immense diversity
    • A relatively small number of fundamental units seem to be what make up everything, like
      • Mushrooms
      • Planets
      • College professors
And, although models of how space-time are put together, like quantum foam, reflect our learning that the universe isn't quite as simple as Newton had reason to think it was, it's still possible for us to describe what we observe - and predict more-or-less successfully what we will observe - using that sort of applied logic we call "mathematics."

As Galileo Galilei wrote, "Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe." (The Quotations Page)

Related posts:

Saturday, November 21, 2009

The Manhattan Declaration: Hateful? - Who Knew?

"Everybody knows" that Christians - particularly those Catholics over there - are backward, hateful, ignorant, and pretty much icky. "The Manhattan Declaration" is, for some subcultures, "proof" of this.

Excerpt from a sample article:
"The Manhattan Declaration- where does it lead? Church's Hate Gay Agenda"
Lez Get Real / A Gay Girl's View on the World (November 21, 2009)

"With the potential to give all Church's a bad rap, a diverse group of Christian leaders joined together Nov. 20 to declare a commitment to defend the sanctity of human life, biblical marriage and religious liberty without compromise. One hundred and fifty evangelical, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox signers said they were coming together to 'embrace our obligation' to speak and act in support of the dignity of all human beings, marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and the freedom to express religious convictions. It is imperative that Church leaders and those of faith who disagree with this, not remain silent, but provide the backlash such hate deserves.

"The 4,700-word statement, yet another reproach for the LGBT communities, named the Manhattan Declaration, asserted: '[W]e will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia...'... "
The full text of this expression of "hate" is available through one of those 'hate-filled' outfits that are trying to keep babies from being killed:
"Manhattan Declaration: A Pro-Life Call of Christian Conscience on Abortion, Liberty"
LifeNews.com

"Preamble

"Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God's word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

"While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire's sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

"After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce's leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

"In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class...."
If that doesn't seem filled with "hate" to you, you probably don't conform to contemporary America's intellectual fashions. And, aren't in favor of chaining children to machines: which was considered to be perfectly okay about a century and a half ago.

Oddly enough, support for the idea of giving workers reasonable compensation for their labor isn't generally viewed as 'hateful' by the more 'serious' thinkers of the western world - even though it's something that the Catholic Church, at least, teaches. (Article 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church)

I think that Christian beliefs are hard for members of some American subcultures to understand, because of a a few assumptions: That
  • Wack jobs are typical Christian leaders
  • Actions don't have consequences
  • Feeling like doing something means having the right to do it
Quite a few Christian groups don't accept those assumptions. And, since assumptions like this have been all the rage in some American sub-cultures for the last few decades, that puts the less fashionable Christian groups at odds with the self-described best and brightest in all the land.

I also think that there are subcultures whose members have become accustomed to getting unqualified, wholehearted, enthusiastic approval and support from America's institutions - and whose members feel hurt when they don't get it.

This sort of reaction isn't a liberal or gay monopoly. It seems to be part of human nature. I remember the fifties and sixties - and how shocked and dismayed some 'real Americans' were, when their (wacky) conservative values weren't treated with uncompromising support.

The Catholic Church Doesn't Approve of Homosexual Behavior: So We Hate Homosexuals?

The Catholic Church (and others, but I'm limiting my discussion to the faith I follow) does not approve of sexual intercourse between members of the same sex. We're also against extra-marital intercourse, and against having sex with animals. From some points of view, Catholics don't want anybody to have fun.
Just What is It, to be "Loving?"
While earning a teaching degree, several decades back, a psychology class I took taught that there were several dimensions to human behavior: including a continuum between "loving" and "controlling" behavior.

"Loving" behavior in that context meant that a person in a position of authority, like a teacher, lets those under that authority, like the students, do what they wanted to. "Controlling" behavior, again in that context, meant that the person in authority would dictate what those under him or her would do.

Being "loving" sounds real groovy, right?

I think there's something to the idea of a continuum between an authority who (tries to) control everything and one who doesn't. I also think that calling the 'whatever' option "loving" is missing some key points.

Let's say there's a teacher who notices that a student is trying to catch butterflies that nobody else can see, and has been spilling pretty colored pills all morning. Strictly applying the psych. class's definition of "loving," a "loving" teacher might allow the student to continue popping pills. And show great compassion by crying when the student died of an overdose.

A "controlling" teacher would almost certainly violate the student's freedom of choice and search for self - and point the kid toward drug rehab. Which might save the student's life. And that, according to the class's definition, isn't "loving."
'If You Really Loved Me, You'd Let Me Do Anything I Want?
In these days of (crazy, I think) zero-tolerance, it's not likely that a teacher would be "loving" toward a pill-popping teen. On the other hand, the idea that to "love" someone means to let that person engage in any behavior, no matter how self-destructive, seems to still be with us.

The Catholic Church doesn't work that way: so we're not "loving" by that psychology class's standards. I've discussed the Church's policies about homosexual behavior elsewhere. ("The Catholic Church and Homosexuals: Harsh and Soft, Judgmental and Understanding" (March 13, 2009))

About the idea, 'if you really loved me, you'd let me do anything I want' - I wonder if guys are still using that on girls and women, to pressure them into having sex? Moving along -

I know this sounds corny, but it's the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing.

And, as a practicing Catholic, I'm required to love people: homosexuals; politicians; the guy who cut me off in traffic; everybody. As I wrote back in March:
"...As a Catholic, I'm forbidden to hate people. It's an option, actually, but the alternative to not hating people is unpleasant:
"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: 'He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.' Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell.' " (Catechism 1033) (emphasis mine)
"Hey! 'serious needs of the poor' - Isn't the Catholic Church Conservative?
"The Catholic Church is not conservative. It isn't liberal. It is the body of Christ, present in the world, the temple of the Living God (797), with foundations in eternity and teachings that aren't intended to fit political ideas that developed in the last century or so...."
(March 13, 2009)
Finally, another sample of the "hate" displayed in The Manhattan Declaration:
"...We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God's intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God's patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to 'a more excellent way.' As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it..."
(The Manhattan Declaration, via LifeNews.com)
"...We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity...." Hateful?

Yes, in the sense that the document doesn't say, 'if you feel like doing something, do it.' By the standards of some American subcultures, that isn't "loving." As with so many other things, I think that seeing the Manhattan Declaration as full of "hate" requires the reader to use a particular set of assumptions.

Related posts:

Friday, November 20, 2009

"The Manhattan Declaration" - Who's More Powerful than the United States Supreme Court?

From today's news:
"Unprecedented coalition of religious leaders call Americans to stand for sanctity of life, marriage, and religious freedom"
Catholic News Agency (November 20, 2009)

"An unprecedented coalition of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders, and scholars has crafted a 4,700-word declaration addressing the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. The declaration issues 'a clarion call' to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not “under any circumstance” abandon their Christian consciences.

"The statement, called 'the Manhattan Declaration,' has been signed by more than 125 Catholic, Evangelical Christian, and Orthodox leaders, and will be made fully public at a noon press conference in the National Press Club in Washington DC on Friday.

" 'We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,' the statement says.

" 'We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral,' the signatories explain...." [emphasis mine]
I am very impressed that so many religious leaders - many of whom are not Catholic - were willing to sign "the Manhattan Declaration."

I think more people are coming to realize that there's an authority higher than the United States Congress - and even more powerful than the United States Supreme Court.

As I've explained to my kids from time to time, sometimes it's necessary to consider whether, at the end of all things, you'd rather be in trouble with the U. S. Supreme Court: or God the Almighty.

Just a thought.

Abortion, "Health Care," "Life of the Mother," and a Story About Two Guys

A very familiar phrase showed up in an AP article about the "health care" bill that Congress is discussing:
"...The bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage.

"In all cases, the money to pay for abortions would have to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries themselves, kept strictly separate from federal subsidy dollars. Government funds could be used for abortions only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother - reflecting a current law known as the Hyde amendment...."
(AP, via The Washington Post) [emphasis mine]
Saying it's okay to kill a baby, if he or she was conceived in an act of rape or incest - or if the mother's life is in peril - feels sort of reasonable. Quite a few Americans think it is:
"A nationwide survey commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has found that four out of five U.S. adults (82 percent) think abortion should either be illegal under all circumstances (11 percent) or would limit its legality. Thirty-eight (38) percent would limit abortion to the narrow circumstances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother; and an additional 33 percent would limit abortion to either the first three or first six months. Only 9 percent said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy...."
(USCCB)
I'm glad - and a bit surprised - to learn that so many Americans show so much ambivalence toward killing babies. The dominant culture in this country has been quite determined to 'normalize' the idea that women should feel that 'it's my body, and I can do what I want.'

It wasn't all that long ago that some "intelligent" and "sophisticated" people said that they saw babies as a sort of loathsome parasite, interfering with the careers and self-actualization of women. Sort of like the title character from "Alien," except that instead of eating people, it demands 3:00 a.m. feedings and frequent changing of diapers.

Rape or Incest: Killing the Child for the Father's Sin

Back in the "good old days," when a warlord defeated a territory's existing leader (king, whatever), one of the first items on the agenda was generally to hunt down and kill every relative of the defeated leader. After all, you wouldn't want a revolt starting, with people intent on putting "the true heir" back on the throne.

And, among people whose socio-economic status was closer to that of my forebears, it hasn't been all that uncommon to extend the guilt of an individual to all members of the erring person's family. ("There's bad blood there," and similar expressions reflect this.)

These days, it's not uncommon for relatives - particularly parents - to get hate mail if a near relation did something very bad.

But these days, in America, I hope that not too many people would consider slaughtering the children of someone who committed a serious crime.

Except for two particular crimes: rape and incest.

I had a quite interesting conversation with someone who said he was pro-life: and believed, firmly, that children conceived in an act of rape or incest should be killed. He had a very good reason, he said: the woman, who was a victim of a deplorable crime (not his phrase), would feel bad about having a baby whose father had committed the crime - and would feel better if the child was killed before birth.

He was, I think, quite "compassionate" - but his own standards.

That fellow didn't back his feeling with 'Bible truths' - but he could have. Sort of:
"...For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;"
(Exodus 20:5)
...which is, of course, taking the Word of God out of context. Not, in general, the best idea. One more thing. That word that comes into English as "jealous" - There's a footnote about it: "Jealous: demanding exclusive allegiance, such as a wife must have for her husband."

Now, I don't believe this, but a person could, I think, twist that passage and a few others into saying that children - including babies who haven't been born yet - should suffer the same consequences for crimes that their parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents and great-great grandparents committed.

"It says so in the Bible." (With a little creative editing.)

No: I do not believe that's true.

I do, though, think that babies are people. Even though they're small, inarticulate, and clumsy.

And I do not think a baby should be killed because of something the baby's father did

"Life of the Mother" - That Sounds So Compassionate

A few years ago, my wife and I were discussing 'life issues,' including abortion. I brought up the sensible-sounding notion that the "life of the mother" exception made sense.

What she said made sense. First of all, doctors aren't all-knowing. They've been known to make mistakes. How often have you heard of - or known - someone who had months to live - years ago? I think that the medical profession is starting to come to grips with their lack of omniscience and omnipotence: but that's another topic.

And I don't think it's beyond the bounds of reason to think that a doctor could think that a woman's baby would kill her - and turn out to be wrong.

Then there's the idea of "mother love" that's been the subject of sloppy sentimentality and bitter derision. The way my wife put it, in connection with the idea of a woman putting out a contract on her baby, to improve her chances of survival, "a lot of moms would say, 'I want my baby to live.' "

Life, Choice, and Two Guys

Instead of a mother and her baby, let's say it's two guys: Charlie and Fred.

Charlie's got serious heart problems. The doctors told him that if he didn't get a heart transplant, he'd die.

Problem is, it's really hard to find a suitable donor for Charlie: Other than Fred.

Fred's heart would suit Charlie just fine. But Fred's in excellent health and isn't involved in a high-risk job.

Now, if Charlie knew Fred, and sort of liked him - or if Fred owed Charlie money - maybe Charlie would feel sort of funny, having Fred killed and broken down for parts.

But otherwise: why not kill Fred? After all, Charlie will die if he doesn't get Fred's heart.

Sounds "compassionate," doesn't it?

Related posts: News and views: Background:

Monday, November 16, 2009

Bishops Re-Assigned in America: Including The Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades

I've made the point before: The Roman Catholic Church isn't an American institution. Sure, there are Catholics like me, who were born in one of the 50 states, are American citizens, and don't mind being called "Americans."

But I'm aware that I am part of an organization that's been international from the first years.1

This global2 organization is headquartered in Rome, but it isn't Italian, either. Rome was the hub of the Roman Empire, and for at least four centuries it made good sense to have the base of operations that most people around the Mediterranean recognized as the hub of civilization and commerce.3

And, units of the Catholic Church in America have gotten new administrators. On orders from the Holy See - or Vatican, as just about everybody in America calls it. Specifically, some bishops have been shifted around.

Last digression: The priest attached to one of the local parishes here in central Minnesota got called to Rome recently. Why, we don't know. Maybe he'll come back with a red hat.

Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Notre Dame, and Being Catholic

Notre Dame got in the news last May, for boldly supporting academic freedom - and President Obama - or ignoring Catholic teaching. Depending on how much you know about the Church. (May 17, 2009, and particularly May 3, 2009)

I can see where some of America's self-described best and brightest would like to see a new bishop. And, they're getting one: The most reverend Kevin Rhoades. Not to worry, though, he's a "moderate" - not one of those "hardliners:"
"Bshp Rhoades (moderate) defeats Naumann (hardliner) 145-93 to head key USCCB commttee#usccb"
(ReligionNewsNow, on Twitter (November 17, 2009)
That United States Conference of Catholic Bishops committee is almost certainly the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. (Catholic News Agency)
Being a "Moderate" doesn't Necessarily Mean Practicing Moderation
In the American subculture I was most familiar with in college, a "hardliner" was someone who had the effrontery, the unmitigated gall, to say something against the 'right' ('left,' actually) ideas. A "moderate" was someone who nicely supported the more reasonable liberal positions, or someone who would say anything - as long as it got him elected. A woman couldn't be a "moderate" under the last definition - but that's a different topic.

So, it looks like someone called a "moderate" will be the next bishop in Notre Dame's diocese.

Their old (figuratively and literally) Bishop, John D'Arcy, just wasn't marching in step with the latest intellectual fashions:
"...Bishop Rhoades, who will turn 52 Nov. 26, succeeds Bishop D'Arcy, who earlier this year was at the forefront of strong criticism of the University of Notre Dame in South Bend for inviting President Barack Obama to give the commencement address and its decision to give him an honorary degree.

"Critics of Obama, including dozens of bishops, said his support of legal abortion and embryonic stem-cell research made him an inappropriate choice to be commencement speaker at a Catholic university and to receive an honorary degree...."
(The Catholic Review Online)
Bishop John D'Arcy did what a bishop is supposed to do: tell the truth, and explain how Catholic teachings apply to current situations. Even if that means saying that a beloved, charismatic leader is un-right.

I can see where that might not sit well with people who expect bishops and other religious people to be nice and 'spiritual' - and do spiritual things decently and quietly, behind closed doors. Certainly not going out in public and saying that God doesn't approve of killing babies, or that "ethics" has a place in contemporary society
"...'President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred,' D'Arcy said. 'While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.'..." (CNN)
(from post of May 3, 2009)
Saying that President Obama is wrong about something? And that abortion isn't a good idea? Yeah, that's being seriously out of step with the times. From the look of it, though, the new bishop will be quite a disappointment to people looking for a "moderate" bishop: in one culturally-normative sense of the word.

For starters, the new bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Kevin Rhoades, is one of the many American bishops who made it clear that they didn't approve of Notre Dame giving President Obama, whose policies oppose Catholic teaching, a platform for expressing his views. May 3, 2009) And yes, that's against the rules:
"...The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions...." [emphasis by USCCB] (Catholics in Political Life USCCB (June 2004))
Who is Bishop Rhoades?
Here's a look at the now bishop of the Diocese of South Bend-Fort Wayne, Indiana.
"...During his short five years here in our diocese, we have seen a stable and permanent Extraordinary Form parish (Mater Dei) erected under the care of the Fraternity of Saint Peter; lots of vocations to the priesthood; restoration of the permanent diaconate. When the Cathedral was renovated, Bishop Rhoades insisted the Tabernacle be restored to its proper place in the middle and center of the sanctuary....."
(Padre Giovanni Trigilio, on The Black Biretta)
Maybe "moderate" describes his style of leadership. Padre Trigilio, in that post, wrote one of the better descriptions of what a bishop should be like:
"...Most of us priests consider ourselves blessed if our our bishop is at least friendly toward us. But even if he is not, it is far more important and necessary that he be a just, honest, orthodox, reverent, compassionate and courageous bishop. Just like parents should not seek to be 'friends' to their children, bishops do not need to be 'friends' they need to be pastors. Friendly, yes; friends, maybe; pastors, always. Bishop Rhoades is a pastor bishop. Friendly but still in charge....Like the Captain or Admiral, Colonel or General in the military, you have the authority to give orders but the respect of your men is something you earn by the way you treat them. Bishop Rhoades is the first bishop to personally thank me for the books on religion I wrote and for the shows I taped for EWTN. He is the first bishop to show enthusiastic support for the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (a national association of priests and deacons committed to ongoing spiritual, theological and pastoral formation in a fraternal setting)....."
(Padre Giovanni Trigilio, on The Black Biretta)
There's quite a bit more. It's a post I suggest you read.

Sounds to me like Bishop Rhoades is a Catholic bishop who happens to be an American - not an American bishop who happens to be a Catholic. I'm glad to hear it - and I think we need more like him.

Finally, a sort of combination view of the Catholic Church in America, and prayer request, from Padre Trigilio on behalf of the Diocese of Harrisburg.
"...We are praying to the Holy Spirit and Our Lady, Mother of the Church, that we be sent another gem like Bishop Rhoades. Not an accountant or manager bishop, but a teacher/pastor bishop who also knows how to shepherd rather than relinquishing authority to sycophant bureaucrats who have political agendas and not the good of Holy Mother Church in their minds. PRAY FOR US...."
(Padre Giovanni Trigilio, on The Black Biretta)
Related posts: News and views:
1 Read Matthew 28:19 and Acts of the Apostles. I figure that when Jesus said "all nations," He meant "all nations."

2 "Catholic" translates into American English as "universal." And, since I'm inclined to accept what I've chosen to believe is a reasonable view of the current event and reality, "universal" could mean that we've got an awesomely big territory to cover. (April 5, 2009)

3 (I know: There were other centers of civilization, but we had to start somewhere. After the Roman Empire collapsed, Rome was still a relatively central location. And still is, if you take the American continents into consideration.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Tony Alamo, 'Those Evangelists,' and Labels

I've mentioned Tony Alamo occasionally in this blog. ("The Pope, the Antichrist, and Fu Manchu" (October 2, 2008), for starters) That's partly because he was such an outstanding example of a particular sort of off-the-rails spiritual leader with a roll-your-own brand of Christianity.

He's in the news again. His followers may assume that the latest development is some sort of popish plot:
"his legal problems may be a Popish plot. CNN quotes Tony Alamo: 'We don't go into pornography; nobody in the church is into that,' Alamo said. 'Where do these allegations stem from? The anti-Christ government. The Catholics don't like me because I have cut their congregation in half. They hate true Christianity.' "
("Evangelist Tony Alamo won't fight extradition" CNN (September 26, 2008).)
(October 2, 2008)
This time it isn't allegations of sexual improprieties, it's a conviction:
"Evangelist Tony Alamo was sentenced Friday to 175 years in prison for taking underage girls across state lines for sex, effectively punishing him for the rest of his life for molesting children he took as 'brides' in his ministry.

"During Friday's hearing, some of Alamo's victims testified about how their families were destroyed while the evangelist took over their lives...."
(AP)
"Convicted over the summer of taking five underage girls across state lines to have sex with them, evangelist Tony Alamo was today sentenced to 175 years in prison by a judge in Texarkana, Ark...."
(NPR)

"Evangelist" and Other Labels

News services tend to use convenient labels for people, like "anti-abortion activist," "terrorist," and "evangelist." These labels are, certainly, convenient - but may be misleading. For example, an "anti-abortion activist" is, for America's dominant culture, someone who is against a "woman's right to chose." Like the fellow who murdered Dr. George Tiller.

An "evangelist" is, when the word isn't capitalized, "a preacher of the Christian gospel" (Princeton's WordNet).

Mr. Alamo claimed to be a preacher of the Christian gospel - and, by his own personal standards, may have been. He also fits the profile of a 'typical' Christian preacher - by the standards of some of America's self-described best and brightest. (August 3, 2009)

As a matter of fact, there was a time - not too many years ago - when American evangelists were in the news rather regularly. At the peak of those sex scandals, it might have been easier to announce which prominent televangelists hadn't been caught with their zipper down.

And, yes, there was the matter of those pedophile priests. (July 25, 2009)

I know that it's convenient to call Tony Alamo an "evangelist." It may - by a stretch of the imagination - even be accurate. But I'd be hesitant to put Mr. Alamo in the same category as, say, Billy Graham and Robert A. Schuller.

But then, I'm not running a news service.

Sort-of related posts: In the news:

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Astrobiology, the Vatican, and the Meaning of Our Existence

A decade or so back, I read the serious - and unsupported - assertion that discovering life that didn't come from Earth would mean the end of religious belief. Specifically, Christianity. I'd give the title of the article, but it was years ago and I wasn't taking notes at the time.

"Everybody Knows" What Those Christians are Like

I grew up in America, so I have a pretty good idea of what the author was thinking. In several American subcultures, "Everybody knows" that religion - Christianity in particular - is completely, totally, and irrevocably against science and reason and stuff like that.

I've written about that before. (March 20, 2009)

The notion that Tony Alamo is a typical Christian leader might reflect a certain lack of awareness. On the other hand, a remarkable number of Americans, at least, take Ussher's basic assumptions seriously. And think that really believing in a relatively small, new, universe is vital to Christian belief.

In a way, the "Bible" universe is a cosier place than the boundless immensity that we live in.1 But I've learned to live with the idea that God can think big if He wants.

I think that notions like 'discovering life elsewhere will end religious belief' get traction because so many self-described Christians are convinced that the universe is no more than about 6,000 years old; that dinosaurs, trilobites and tree ferns didn't exist - or if they did, they don't have anything to do with birds, crabs and garden plants. And, make those assumptions part of the foundation of their faith.

When or if life is found elsewhere, people who don't like what's been learned in the last few centuries will have decisions to make. Some may simply decide that the extraterrestrial is another lie by the evil scientists. Others may start believing in something other than their notion of what Christianity is.

What's So Spiritual About Space Aliens?

Here's what got me started today:
"Both scientists and believers posit that life is a 'special outcome' in a 'vast and mostly inhospitable universe,' and to study this common understanding, the Vatican brought together an interdisciplinary group of scholars to work on and study astrobiology.

"The conclusions of the five-day work-study were presented today by a Jesuit priest and leading professors from Italy, France and the United States.

" 'Astrobiology is the study of life's relationship to the rest of the cosmos,' one of the professors explained. 'Its major themes include the origin of life and its precursor materials, the evolution of life on earth, and its future prospects on and off the earth.'..."

"...[University of Arizona astronomy department professor and Steward Observatory's (Tucson) Chris] Impey acknowledged that making contact with an intelligent species in space would have profound implications for our self-image.

" 'It is appropriate that a meeting on this frontier topic is hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,' he stated. 'The motivations and methodologies might differ, but both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe. There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe.'"
(ZENIT)
Note: These folks aren't members of a cargo cult, convinced that flying saucer people will solve all of our problems. They're scientists and theologians who are able to take observations and accept reasoned conclusions.

The number of known exoplanets is over 400 and rising. So far, nobody's found living creatures elsewhere. (as far as we know: a scientist, Joop Houtkooper, made an intriguing suggesting about a failed(?) Viking life experiment (Apathetic Lemming of the North (March 5, 2009))

Although we may find that life exists only on Earth, right now I wouldn't bet five cents on the assertion - and it's probably just as well that professionals are discussing what to look for. And, what to do if we find life elsewhere.

Me? I've long since decided that God can do what He wants with what He made - so I won't be shocked and dismayed if we find life elsewhere. On the other hand, I'd be more than a bit disturbed if there were people out there - and they all looked like Charlton Heston in the role of Moses.

Related posts: In the news: An updated list of posts in Apathetic Lemming of the North on:
1 "Boundless" isn't "infinite." The surface of a sphere is boundless, but has a limited area. At our present level of understanding, it looks like the three spatial dimensions we live in are not bounded, but are finite.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Small Town Hicks and Sophisticated Urbanites: A Reality Check

I ended one of today's posts with this:
"...I don't know that we should be too hard on the editors and staff of the New Yorker, though. Like the people at The New York Times, they're city folks - and don't get out of their little world all that much."
(November 9, 2009)

Stereotypes and a Reality Check

This may have changed in recent years, but for quite a while you could tell who the bad guy was in a television show: it was that small-town hick with the broad southern-redneck accent. For some reason, people in small towns often spoke as if they lived in a particularly isolated rural section of the Old South - even if their town was in northern Oregon.

Which threatens to get this post into another topic.

In a way, I shouldn't blame the directors and writers of those shows. They have rigidly-defined time limits, and the faster that a point can be made - "this guy is suspicious," for example - the faster they can get on to more satisfying dramatic matters. Like character development, establishing a visual metaphor, or showing a helicopter chase.

It is, perhaps, understandable that the creative talents of American entertainment media make use of commonly-held stereotypes.
"For decades, I've seen indications that the stereotype behind 'Green Acres' and similar comedies is not merely false: it's inverted. (Green Acres fans: please don't take offense. I thought the show was funny, and nobody came off as particularly sharp.)

"Stay with me, please: I'm not trying to create another 'victim' group.

"The stereotype is:
  • "Knowledgeable, up-to-date, broad-minded city folk
  • "Ignorant, decades out of touch with current events, dangerously narrow-minded country folk
"There may have been a time when this reflected reality. In the days before the Internet, television, radio, telegraph, and the printing press, a person's - or a community's - knowledge of the world depended largely on personal, face-to-face, contact...."
(Another War-on-Terror Blog, April 13, 2008)
I've written about this before. The gist of it is:
"...It's not that rural people are smarter, or more interested.

"What's going on in urban areas permeates the media. It's hard not to know something about New York City, Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other cities...."
(Another War-on-Terror Blog, April 13, 2008)
It's been quite a while since the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television put rural households in closer contact with the rest of the world. And now, with Internet connections about as common across America as telephones were when I was growing up, there are few barriers to anyone who wants to stay informed.

But then, I live in a small town: and 'everybody knows' what those people are like.

Related posts:

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.