Saturday, April 30, 2011

Pope John Paul II Beatification, Opinions, and the Church

I'll have some quotes and links in this post, but mostly I plan to opine: with the full authority of "some guy with a blog."

Tomorrow is Divine Mercy Sunday: and it's also the day that Pope John Paul II is scheduled to be formally beatified. I think it's a pretty big deal - and other folks seem to have the same opinion.

Two Millennia of 'On This Rock' - and Counting

Not that everybody's quite on the same page, about whether or not John Paul II should be beatified - and why it's being done. I've gotten the impression that some folks strongly disapprove of the former Pope because he didn't do what they wanted him to: legalize homosexual marriage, repeal Vatican II, or whatever.

'You can't please everybody,' and that's not what the Catholic Church is about.

In my personal opinion, Pope John Paul II did a good job of carrying out the commission that my Lord gave Peter, about two thousand years back now. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Much more to the point, my spiritual leaders in the Church followed the procedures we've been developing: and found that Pope John Paul II did a good job of being a Christian. That, and a verified miracle, qualifies him for beatification.

Will Pope John Paul II be canonized? I won't be surprised if he is - but I am also a practicing Catholic, and leave the decision-making for that to the Holy See.

That doesn't mean that I stopped thinking when I converted to Catholicism. Some religious groups may require members to check their brains at the door - the Catholic Church doesn't work that way. I've opined about that before. (January 15, 2011)

On the other hand, I've long since decided that I'm not smarter or more powerful than God. I've also decided that the simplest way to explain why the Catholic Church is still around after nearly two thousand years is that what they've been claiming all that time is true: Jesus, the Son of God, gave Peter authority to run His Church - and God has been backing Peter and his successors ever since. (August 18, 2010)

John Paul II's Legacy

It's true: Pope John Paul II didn't rub a lucky rabbit's foot, or sprinkle pixie dust, and fix all the ills of the Catholic Church. He didn't part the Red Sea, either. Neither did Moses, for that matter. (Exodus 14:21) And that's another topic.

I read, in yesterday's news, about one fellow's opinion of what Pope John Paul II left for the Catholic Church. He could be right:
"Pope John Paul II's teachings will take centuries to fully explore and understand. That's according to his official biographer, George Weigel.

" 'It's going to be several hundred years before the Church really takes on board the breadth and depth of this man's explication of the Gospel, and in that sense we're going to be thinking, and arguing, about John Paul II for hundreds of years,' Weigel told the Catholic Herald on April 28.

"The U.S. author devoted 15 years of his life researching his biographies 'Witness to Hope' and 'The End of the Beginning.' In that time he concluded that Pope John Paul was an 'utterly normal human being” but one who was radically open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

" 'I think everything he did, as a literary man, as a philosopher, as a priest, a bishop, a statesman, a pope, grew out of his radical Christian discipleship,” he said....

"...But 'every baptised person has the opportunity to live a life of radical discipleship. And that's our connection to him,' he said.

"Weigel suggests that the most obvious legacy of Pope John Paul is the generation of young Catholics committed to Christian orthodoxy.'..."
(CNA)
Pope John Paul II, doctor of the Church? Maybe - but like I said before, I'll let the Holy See decide.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:In the news:

Friday, April 29, 2011

Pope John Paul II Beatification, and a Goldilocks Process

Pope John Paul II (the English-language variation of Ionnes Paulus II) is scheduled for beatification soon. It's possible that he will be canonized - recognized as a saint. I think it's likely: but I accept the Holy See's decision, either way.

This brings up a question:

What's the big deal with saints?

Saints (capital "S") are the folks who "practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace:"
"By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.303 'The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history.'304 Indeed, 'holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal.'305"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church ,828))

Veneration isn't Worship

Catholics may venerate Saints. We're not allowed to worship them. And I've gone over that before. (April 16, 2011)

Catholics are commanded to worship God - only God. It's that "The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve" thing. (Matthew 4:10) (Exodus 20:2-5, Deuteronomy 5:6-9, Catechism of the Catholic Church (2083-2084)

Since the veneration and worship seem to get mixed up fairly often, a little background:
"VENERATION (OF SAINTS): Showing devotion and respect to Mary, the Apostles, and the martyrs, who were viewed as faithful witnesses to faith in Jesus Christ. Later, veneration was given to those who led a life of prayer and self-denial in giving witness to Christ, whose virtues were recognized and publicly proclaimed in their canonization as saints (828). Such veneration is often extended to the relics or remains of those recognized as saints; indeed, to many sacred objects and images. Veneration must be clearly distinguished from adoration and worship, which are due to God alone (1154, 1674, 2132)."
(from Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church)

"WORSHIP: Adoration and honor given to God, which is the first act of the virtue of religion (2096). Public worship is given to God in the Church by the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ in the liturgy (1067)."
(from Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church)
There's more about veneration in the Catechism, including this selection: 127, 1090, 1154, 1378, 1674, 2129-2132. That's not an exhaustive list, but it's a start.

The Telegraph 'Gets It'

I've run into quite a few notions about Saints and Catholicism over the decades, some more - imaginative? - than others. I didn't know what to expect when I saw this headline in The Telegraph's online edition: "How to become a saint ."
"As Catholics preapre [!] for the beatification of Pope John Paul II, here is a guide on how to become a saint:

"Most saints don't set out to become a saint, instead they live a devoted Catholic life and spend their time serving God and helping people in need. Eventually, their good deeds are recognised after their death, and the Pope canonises them...."
(The Telegraph)
I'm pretty sure that The Telegraph missed quite a few of the fine points - but those paragraphs and the short list of qualifications that followed agrees pretty well with what I've read in the Church's own documents.

Miraculous? No: an Anticoagulant

Miracles happen. ("Miracles Manifest the Supernatural Order," Pope John Paul II, General Audience (January 13, 1988)) But samples of Pope John Paul II's blood still being liquid isn't a miracle: it's contemporary medical technology:
"A vial of blood drawn from John Paul II will serve as a relic during the late pontiff's upcoming beatification Mass in Rome on May 1.

"The Vatican announced on April 26 that the relic will to be presented to Pope Benedict XVI and exposed for veneration during the Mass in St. Peter’s Square this coming Sunday. The vial will then be stored in a shrine by the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, along with other relics.

"Four vials of blood were drawn shortly before John Paul II's death on April 2, 2005 by a personal physician, in case of the need for a transfusion. The Vatican explained in a April 26 statement that the blood in the vials is in a liquid state due to an anticoagulant substance which was present in the tubes at the time of collection...."
(CNA (April 26, 2011))

Parkinson's Disease Healed: That was a Miracle

On the other hand, a French nun who had Parkinson's Disease stopped having the disease - under circumstances that can't be explained medically. That's a miracle - and John Paul II was responsible, according to investigators. (ZENIT)

Moving a Body, Shipping a Tombstone: No Wonder People Talk

I grew up in America, so the idea of digging up a grave, moving the body, and marking the tombstone for shipment to another country seems - odd at best, maybe even ghoulish. (CNA (April 29, 2011))

But it's the way we work - Catholics, that is.

Objects touched or used by a Saint - and the bodies of Saints - are "relics" and quite important in the Catholic Church. By the way, if someone tries to sell you a relic? I strongly recommend declining the offer. "It is absolutely forbidden to sell sacred relics." (Code of Cannon Law, 1190) I've mentioned relics before. (July 25, 2010)

There's a little background on relics in Chapter Six: Veneration of the Saints and Beati," ... Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (December 2001)

A Goldilocks Beatification?

I gather that some folks say the Vatican is rushing to push Pope John Paul II into sainthood - probably for some nefarious purpose. 'You know what those people are like.'

Then there are the "Santo Subito" folks who want the former Pope canonized - now.

Me? I think that I'm a practicing Catholic, who has decided to worship the Savior, and who also decided to join the outfit that Jesus set up.

That means that I've decided to follow the lead of an organization that's been around for about two thousand years. As centuries rolled by, the Catholic Church has set up procedures to get things done, like beatification and canonization.

Doing things 'by the numbers' can be frustratingly slow - I'm an American, and we seem to be a fidgety lot at best. I also think that doing a careful, methodical, investigation is a good way to produce valid results.

Looks like the beatification and continuing process of seeing of Pope John Paul II gets canonized is taking a sort of 'Goldilocks' approach - going about as fast as a careful examination can go; but not rushing the process, either:
"In his first days in office back in 2005, Pope Benedict considered but rejected the instant canonization of Pope John Paul II. That's the claim being made by Andrea Tornielli, Vatican correspondent with the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

"He writes April 27, 'Pope Ratzinger did not decide on the spot. He knew his predecessor and had no doubts about his personal holiness. He wanted to consult first, though, and finally decided to waive the usual waiting period of five years (before opening the cause of canonization) but not to skip the step of beatification.'

"Tornielli claims that the suggestion of instant canonization came from Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the private secretary to John Paul II. He also states that the idea of not waiting the standard five-year period before opening a cause of canonization was made by the Slovak Cardinal Jozef Tomko, a close friend and confidant of John Paul II...."
(CNA (April 27, 2011))
Somewhat-related posts:
In the news:
From the Vatican:

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Charity, Nuns, and an Overloaded Helicopter

My #2 daughter and son-in-law are in Louisiana today, visiting his family. We got a call from them this morning: they're fine, so's his family; and they just missed severe weather. Twice.

That's good news for this family: but not everybody's got such a pleasant story to tell. The last I heard, severe weather yesterday killed about 250 people.

Which is bad, but not as bad as it could have been. Back in 1908, from the 24th to the 26th of April, tornadoes in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, killed 324 people. Then there was the March 18, 1925, Tri-State tornado: starting near Ellington, Missouri, and ending about three and a half hours later in southern Indiana. Death toll that time was 695 people, 234 of those deaths were in Murphysboro, Illinois. (NOAA)

I could, at this point, claim that my family was spared because we're such nice folks - and that the dead got what was coming to them. That's not gonna happen. Like I wrote yesterday, "I take Matthew 7:1-5 very seriously." Then there's the tower at Siloam thing. (Luke 13:1-5) (March 15, 2011)

Here in central Minnesota, we got snow yesterday evening. Considering what was happening elsewhere, that was something of an anticlimax.

Dealing With Disasters

Storms, floods, fires, and other disasters happen. Even when something spectacular hasn't happened, some folks have a hard time 'making ends meet.' The Catholic Church can't 'make everything better,' but we do have an obligation to feed the hungry, satisfy the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the ill, and visit those in prison. (Matthew 25:34-46) (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2446)

I'm counting on my Lord not expecting everyone to do everything - and that's another topic. (1 Corinthians 12)

The Holy See: Micromanagement in Reverse, Sort of

I've noticed that the Catholic Church, for all its reputation as a top-down hierarchical organization, delegates. A lot. Let's look at some numbers:
  • Roman Catholics, world-wide, July 2011 estimate
    • 1,177,100,000
  • Vatican City population
    • 832
    (source:"Holy See (Vatican City), "World," CIA World Factbook
    (last updated April 6, 2011))
That may be part of the explanation for why you seldom read about the Vatican getting directly involved in some disaster relief project. That sort of boots-on-the-ground operation is, I think, best handled by folks whose job is not high-level administration. Anyway, here's where some of the 800-plus folks in the Vatican work:

"Pontifical Council Cor Unum for Human and Christian Development" Palazzo San Calisto V-00120
Vatican City State
  • Objectives
    • "To assist the Pope and be his instrument for carrying out special initiatives in the field of humanitarian actions when disasters occur, or in the field of integral human promotion;
    • "To foster the catechesis of Charity and encourage the faithful to give a concrete witness to evangelical charity;
    • "To encourage and coordinate the initiatives of Catholic Organizations through the exchange of information and by promoting fraternal cooperation in favour of integral human development."
The Vatican's Cor Unum doesn't work like Jeff Tracy's International Rescue. No secret island base. No astounding technology. Just - in this case - a war-surplus helicopter, two pilots, and a few nuns:
"...In Chokwe (12 - 14 thousand inhabitants) I visited the hospital run by the Vincentian Sisters of Charity, where there were 80 AIDS and tuberculoses patients. With the flooding, the Sisters carried all of them to safety on the roof of the building. The Sisters never abandoned them and remained for three days with the sick in the waters which continued to rise.

"Already at the beginning of the disaster, a Spanish benefactor had provided a helicopter to the Vincentian Sisters. The helicopter had been used in the Vietnam war. The two pilots were from South Africa. There were places for only seven people on board, but one day 45 persons were transported - in one single trip. Operating in this way for one week, they managed to save the lives of more than 500 persons. Means of transport continues to be one of the major urgencies...." (Archbishop Paul Josef Cordes (March 9-12, 2000))
Flying 45 people in a vintage helicopter designed to hold seven? It's a good thing the folks in Chokwe were dealing with Vincentian Sisters, not OSHA.

And that is yet another topic.

Somewhat-related posts:
In the news:
Background (not an exhaustive list):

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Pakistani Archbishop, Florida Book-Burner, and Living with Differences

This news is three weeks old, but I think the underlying topic will - unhappily - stay 'fresh' for quite a long time:
"Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore has asked the U.S. government to take action over the burning of a Quran by a Christian pastor in Florida.

" 'The U.S. government talks about religious freedom – but we call upon the U.S. government to prevent such actions by extremists and other fundamentalist Christians,' the president of the Pakistan bishops' conference told Aid to the Church in Need.

" 'The U.S. government should detain the pastor for some time,' the archbishop continued. 'In view of the effects his actions have had all over the world, he should be controlled and understand the harm that has been done.'

"On March 20, Florida pastor Terry Jones of the non-denominational 50-member Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida presided over what he called an 'International Judge the Koran Day.' He supervised the burning of the book in front of about 50 people.

"Video posted on the church's website showed a kerosene-soaked book going up in bright flames in a metal fire pit located inside the church...."
(CNA (Catholic News Agency))
I've discussed the recent Florida book-burning before. I think Terry Jones and company got a great deal of free publicity out of the stunt, and are unlikely to be held accountable for the consequences. Not by the American judicial system.

As for long-term consequences, I take Matthew 7:1-5 very seriously. I've gone over "Stop judging, that you may not be judged..." before. (September 11, 2010)

Practicing Religious Freedom in a Big World

This country's customs and assumptions about 'religious freedom' have worked pretty well for more than two centuries. But for most of that time, most Americans could believe that "Christian" meant "Protestant" - and still consider themselves very open-minded: because they let Baptists (or Lutherans, or whatever) build a church down the street.

I don't think we can get away with that much longer.

Book Burnings, India, and Academic License Freedom

If the "Dove" folks had burned a Quran in India, Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha probably wouldn't have had to make that request. Indian law is designed to work in a country where everybody is most definitely not on the same page when it comes to religion. As of 2001, folks in India were:
  • Hindu, 80.5%
  • Muslim, 13.4%
  • Christian, 2.3%
  • Sikh, 1.9%
  • Other, 1.8%
  • Unspecified, 0.1%
    (CIA World Factbook, India (last updated April 6, 2011))
I gather that in India, deliberately offending someone's religious sentiments is illegal:
Here in America, some of us call it 'academic freedom' - and I've written about that before, too:

'My End of the Boat isn't Sinking,' and Niemöller's Poem(s)

I grew up in America, and have learned to value the freedom of expression that we enjoy - imperfectly though it's enforced at times.

I am also appalled at the sort of casual blasphemy that seems to be regarded as a 'constitutional right' by American academics and other 'serious thinkers.'


(from PZ Myers, Pharyngula (July 24, 2008), used w/o permission)

Should America look at what India has done, and forbid deliberate insults to another's faith? I really don't know: but folks like the Florida book-burners make the approach look very attractive.

One thing I'm quite certain will not work is 'getting back to the good old days.'

Goodbye WASP Nest, Hello World

America is no longer a WASP nest. As a member of a religious minority, I don't mind the idea that we won't go back to the 'good old days' when Protestant fundamentalists were the de facto religious and cultural authorities.

I think that America needs to find some way to deal with academics, preachers, and others who seem to get their kicks from insulting the faith of others.

Maybe it seems odd, a practicing Catholic saying that burning a Quran isn't right. Actually, as a practicing Catholic, I have to believe that freedom of religion is important. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2104-2109) In practical terms, my take on freedom and tolerance is that Catholics, Muslims, college professors, and nondenominational whatevers, all live in the same country. Each of these groups can't very well go around pretending that they - or we - are the only people here.

It's like the old saying goes - 'my end of the boat isn't sinking' just doesn't make sense.

And there are the many versions of Niemöller's poem - which I've written about before. Fairly recently.

Somewhat-related posts:
In the news:

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

No Open Season on Transgendered People, Please!

Beating up someone in a McDonald's isn't right, in my considered opinion. Even if the victim isn't wearing the 'right' clothes.

On a related topic, I'm not a big fan of 'hate crime' legislation: but since those laws are on the books, I think I understand why prosecutors may bring 'hate crime' charges against some young women in Maryland.

Here's what I'm talking about:

"Love" isn't "Approval"

This may seem off-topic, but it's not. I'll get back to what I think about the possible 'hate crime.'

I've gotten the impression that quite a few folks in America think that "God hates fags." Sorry about the language - but there aren't many decent ways to describe what folks like Fred Phelps preach. (November 8, 2010)

I'm a practicing Catholic, so I'm not allowed to hate anybody. (December 9, 2010)

I'm also commanded to love people. All people. (Matthew 22:36-40)

"Love" needs to be defined in this context, I think. An educational psychology class I took included a personality profile on a continuum of "controlling" to "loving." I tested out as being far over on the "controlling" side. Possibly because I'm not inclined to let someone else get hurt.

Think about it. Is it particularly 'loving' to
  • Let your friend drive drunk?
  • Let your kids eat anything they want?
  • Do nothing while someone you know commits suicide?
That last is not a hypothetical situation for me - and that's another topic. (January 28, 2009)

I think, based on very sketchy information in the news, that the person who was beaten in that Maryland McDonalds was not acting in full compliance with Catholic teachings.

But - and this is a very important point - I also think that beating that person was a very bad thing to do. 'Judgmental' as that may sound.

Weird!

Contemporary American culture is odd in some ways. Very odd, in my opinion.

Gender, Sex, and America

For example, look at how we use the word, "gender." It's got two main meanings:
  • Gender
    1. "a grammatical category in inflected languages governing the agreement between nouns and pronouns and adjectives; in some languages it is quite arbitrary but in Indo-European languages it is usually based on sex or animateness"
    2. "the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles"
    (Princeton's WordNet)
Definition #1 was the one most often used when I was growing up. In the last decade or so, many Americans have started using "gender" when they mean "sex."

Which, in my opinion, is a trifle daft.

A pen, boat, or rock can have "gender," if the language allows it. But, and I think this is important, people have sex, not gender.

I could re-write that, to avoid a double entendre, but - I think you get the point.

Sex, People, and Rules

I indulge in nostalgia now and then: but my memory's too good to let me think the fifties, the sixties, or the age of disco were the 'good old days.' Although I do like some of those over-the-top disco fashions. And that's almost another topic, again.

I converted to Catholicism, and take my faith very seriously. That means that I can't cheat on my wife, kill my kids, or rob a bank. Those would be violations of the Sixth, Fifth, and Tenth Commandments.

There's something to the stereotype that the Catholic Church has rules about everything.

There's even a sort of dress code: including the often-misunderstood (in my opinion) rule about men dressing like men, women dressing like women, and not the other way around. I've discussed that before. (September 26, 2009)

What the Church teaches, as far as I can tell, is not that everybody should dress like folks did in America, back in the 1940s and 1950s.

Nothing wrong with zoot suits or poodle skirts, in my opinion: but 21st-century Minnesota isn't 'Happy Days'-era America, or first-century Israel. The winters are colder here than they were or are in the Holy Land, for starters.

Which gets me to what happened to Chrissy Lee Polis in that Maryland fast-food place.

Genders by the Bushel

I lost count of how many "genders" people were supposed to have - the number kept changing, when political correctness was in bloom. At one point there were over a dozen, as I recall.

I don't know if the fellow in Korea who married his pillow was covered: and that's not quite another topic. (August 7, 2010)

Transgendered People are - - - People

"Gender" comes into play because the person who was beaten in Maryland is what we call transgendered.

Definition time again.
  • Transgendered
    1. "involving a partial or full reversal of gender"
    (Princeton's WordNet)
The news I've read uses the female personal pronoun when referring to Chrissy Lee Polis, or refers to the person as a woman. That's culturally-normative in today's America, and probably enforced by law.

I don't know if Chrissy Lee Polis simply wears women's clothing, or was surgically altered to resemble a woman: but from the label "transgendered woman" and associated descriptions, I gather that Chrissy Lee Polis is, biologically, a male human being.

And that Chrissy Lee Polis has decided to have the outward appearance, at least in part, of a female human being.

Do I:
And I certainly don't think it's right to strike someone for not wearing the right clothes.

As I've said before, I've got the teaching authority of "some guy with a blog." But I think I'm on pretty solid ground here. I've put links to a few authoritative resources under "Background," below.

Related posts:
News and views:
Background (this is not an exhaustive list):
"Catechism" refers to "Catechism of the Catholic Church," second edition. (Latin 1994, 1997; English translation 1994, 1997)

Monday, April 25, 2011

Arithmetic, God, and Getting a Grip

Let's say that somebody writes an article about arithmetic and concludes by saying, "because two plus two equals four: God does not exist." I don't think anybody's done that, by the way.

I think very few folks would take "2+2=4, therefore God doesn't exist" seriously. At least, I hope so.

On the other hand, the notion that 'the natural world changes in predictable ways, therefore God doesn't exist' seems to be taken very seriously. In America, at least, and maybe in Western culture as a whole.

I think the notion that 'change disproves God' notion is silly - and that's more-or-less what this post is about.

Headings in this post:

Faith, Reason, and Getting a Grip

I keep running into folks who are convinced that faith and reason are mutually exclusive ideas - that a reasonable person can't have religious beliefs, and that a religious person is, by definition, unreasonable:
"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people."
- Doris Egan
I've discussed that before. (June 19, 2010)

In my experience, folks with 'deeply felt religious beliefs' don't, generally, describe themselves as unreasonable. But, again in my experience, quite a few of the more blatantly 'religious' folks seem convinced that science is opposed to religion - and that religious people can't 'believe in' science.

In a way, they're right, sort of. But they're wrong, sort of.

Back to a list of this post's headings

I don't 'Believe In' Science - Sort of

I do not 'believe in' science.

Not in the sense that I anchor my hopes for fulfillment on breakthroughs in applied physics and biology: or find the meaning and purpose of existence in studies of the Apex Chert. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (April 23, 2011))

That, in my opinion, would be silly.

I also haven't decided to ignore what's been learned in the last few centuries because it's 'not in the Bible.'

Back to a list of this post's headings

It's Not in the Bible

Telephones, nylon, and safety glass aren't in the Bible either - but I use them daily. Without feeling pangs of guilt.

I take the Bible very seriously, though. Because I am a practicing Catholic, I believe that the Bible is "...the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit...." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 81)

I'm also pretty well convinced that the Bible is not a "...history text, a science book, or a political manifesto...." ("Bible Is for Catholics," USCCB)

I've discussed why I'm not bothered by contemporary technology before:
Which reminds me: I've got the full teaching authority of "some guy with a blog." Which explains the citations and links to authoritative sources. Other sorts of sources, too - but I try to point out which are 'unofficial.'

Moving on.
Back to a list of this post's headings

Victorian Gentlemen, Bible-Thumpers, and Me

When I was growing up, the Victorian Age was more recent than it is today. The peculiar sexual mores of the 19th century upper crust in England and America were often highlighted as examples of what not to do. Or reviewed strictly for laughs.

The equally-peculiar (in my opinion) assumptions about the nature of reality that were popular in Victoria's England - those seemed to be taken quite seriously by the 'better sort' of my youth.

Particularly the idea that religion was something for silly, none-too-bright people who didn't know any better.
Back to a list of this post's headings

God, Creation, and Change

What 'religious' folks seem to go particularly ballistic about is evolution - the idea that living things change over time. In ways that are orderly - or at least in ways that can be studied.

The idea that (boo! hiss!) evolution is anti-religion, anti-God, and all that, is pretty solidly lodged in many minds.

And has been, since 19th-century 'serious thinkers' claimed that orderly change denied the existence of God - and Bible-thumpers of the day decided to that Bishop Ussher was right. I've been over this before:
"...'We know that the truth of human life is infinitely greater than any narrow view that dismisses some lives as disposable. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution,' Pope Benedict pointed out at his inaugural Mass. 'Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.'..." (September, 2005)
That's not inconsistent with what Pope John Paul II said in 1996:
"...Pope John Paul II articulated the church's position most clearly in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, saying the theory of evolution is 'more than a hypothesis.'..." (AP, via FOXNews)
(quotes used June 29, 2009)

Introduction to a publication for a science convention at the Holy See:
"Certainly the Church acknowledges that 'with the help of science and technology…, man has extended his mastery over almost the whole of nature', and thus 'he now produces by his own enterprise benefits once looked for from heavenly powers' (Gaudium et Spes, 33). at the same time, Christianity does not posit an inevitable conflict between supernatural faith and scientific progress. The very starting-point of Biblical revelation is the affirmation that God created human beings, endowed them with reason, and set them over all the creatures of the earth. In this way, man has become the steward of creation and God's 'helper'. If we think, for example, of how modern science, by predicting natural phenomena, has contributed to the protection of the environment, the progress of developing nations, the fight against epidemics, and an increase in life expectancy, it becomes clear that there is no conflict between God's providence and human enterprise. Indeed, we could say that the work of predicting, controlling and governing nature, which science today renders more practicable than in the past, is itself a part of the Creator's plan.

"Science, however, while giving generously, gives only what it is meant to give. Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfil all his existential and spiritual needs. Science cannot replace philosophy and revelation by giving an exhaustive answer to man's most radical questions: questions about the meaning of living and dying, about ultimate values, and about the nature of progress itself."
Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI
to the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 6 November 2006."
From "Plenary Session on The Scientific Legacy of the 20th Century" (PDF) (28 October - 1 November 2010)
(quotes used October 30, 2010)
"Science leads to truth about God, humanity, Pope says"
Catholic News Agency (October 28, 2010)

"Science in the 21st century must work for the 'true good of man,' the Pope told a group of scientists Oct. 28. The 'positive outcome' of this century largely depends on it.

"The Holy Father hosted members of the Pontifical Academy for Science in audience at the Vatican. The group is gathered in Rome for the academy's plenary meeting examining 'The Scientific Legacy of the Twentieth Century.'...

"...The task of science, rather, 'was and remains a patient yet passionate search for the truth about the cosmos, about nature and about the constitution of the human being,' said the Pope....

"...The Church 'is convinced that scientific activity ultimately benefits from the recognition of man's spiritual dimension and his quest for ultimate answers that allow for the acknowledgment of a world existing independently from us, which we do not fully understand and which we can only comprehend in so far as we grasp its inherent logic,' he said...."
(quotes used October 30, 2010)
(and see "Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to Participants in the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences" (October 28, 2010))

Then there are Catholics who seem convinced that they should believe what the Pope says only when he supports their preferences. And that is definitely another topic.

Back to a list of this post's headings

Weaving a Universe

This post got started yesterday, when I did a micro-review in another blog:
Some physicists have a new - and attractively elegant - model for how this universe got started. It's not exactly what the first chapter of Genesis says: but that doesn't bother me. Any more than I'm tormented by Joshual 10:13 not reflecting a Copernican understanding of planetary orbits. Or Luke 17:6 not giving particularly good advice on how to transplant a mulberry tree.

My faith isn't shattered when folks learn something new about this vast, wondrous, creation we live in: in large part because I think that we can learn about God by studying what He's made. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 32)

Back to a list of this post's headings

Somewhat-related posts:

Since I keep coming back to odd ideas about faith and reason, religion and science, I maintain a link page of related posts in this blog:

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Christ is Risen!

My Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, lost quite a few of his followers when he said "my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (John 6:55-69)

Jesus the Nazarene: Crucified, Dead, Buried

Then he was arrested, tortured, killed, and buried. (John 18-19)

I think Jesus was, putting it mildly, a good man who said some quite profound things.

That's not why I follow Him.

I follow Jesus the Nazarene in large part because of what happened after he'd been killed.

Jesus Didn't Stay Dead

Jesus stopped being dead, left the tomb, had a series of meetings with his followers, gave them final orders, and left. Temporarily. (John 20-21, Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:9, Acts 1:10-11)

That apparently made quite an impression on Peter and the rest - Peter repented and was forgiven, by the way. (John 21:15-17)

Almost two thousand years later, the successor of Peter is still leading my Lord's Church through time. Folks - some of us - are still preoccupied with just when Jesus will return. Nothing new there. (2 Thessalonians 2-3) And that's another topic.

Jerusalem, Minnesota, and Points Beyond

My wife and #3 daughter celebrated Mass at the parish church down the street last night - I'd have gone, but a few sneezes and other signs of an impending cold suggested that I stay in. That particular Saturday night Mass can be a long one. As I see it, we're "called to holiness, not stupidity." (February 6, 2011)

An hour or so from now, I plan to be at Our Lady of the Angels church, here in Sauk Centre, Minnesota: where we'll be celebrating Mass.

Quite a bit has happened since the Last Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. The Roman Empire enjoyed a few centuries of prosperity before becoming a memory; other empires rose and fell; my ancestors raided and pillaged each other; and the Catholic Church continues its march through time.

The Church has been doing more than just waiting for the last two millennia - Matthew 25 shows part of our standing orders, and that's yet another topic.

Somewhat-related posts:

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Day Two of a Novena I'm Not Doing

At Maundy Thursday Mass, one of the priests reminded us that the Divine Mercy Novena started tomorrow, Friday.

By now, Thursday's 'tomorrow' is today's yesterday. And I didn't start the Novena.

Guilt, Shame, and Parchisi Wednesday Night

Does that mean that I'm wracked with guilt and shame, shuddering in abject horror at the unpardonable affront that I've committed?

No. Not hardly.

The Divine Mercy Novena is:
  • A good idea
    • In my opinion
  • Something Catholics may do
  • Not something Catholics have to do
I've gone over the wide range of expression the Catholic Church encourages before:
Maybe you knew someone who was Catholic and firmly believed that all Catholics had the solemn duty to play parchisi each Wednesday night: but not Parcheesi.

That's a silly hypothetical example. At least, I hope it is. A bit more seriously, I've found that there are folks who have rather definite - and probably quite sincere - notions about what the Catholic Church 'really' says. Notions that may reflect their own personal preferences, or local custom - but which didn't come from the Holy See.

As I've said before, with more than 1,000,000,000 Catholics living today - some of us are going to be a bit bonkers. Just like any other enormous, diverse group.

Moving on.

Novena Optional, Mass Obligatory

Like I said, doing the Divine Mercy Novena, a nine-day prayer starting yesterday and wrapping up on Divine Mercy Sunday, is optional.

Celebrating Mass that Sunday - is not-so-optional. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2180) I've written about that sort of thing before, too. (October 9, 2010)

Divine Mercy Devotion was fairly wide-spread in the Church, before a Polish Pope caught some glitches in a translation of Saint Faustina's diary - and that's almost another topic.

Universal Church, Local Parish

The central Minnesota town I live in, Sauk Centre, was dedicated to the Divine Mercy about the same time I got married. Which should help me remember our wedding anniversary - and that is definitely another topic.

Anyway, Divine Mercy Sunday is part of the calendar now - the second Sunday of Easter. Pope Benedict XVI will be celebrating it at St. Peter's Square May 1, 2011. And we'll be celebrating Mass that day at Our Lady of the Angels Church, here in Sauk Centre.

Which means that, as I understand it, we'll be at the Mass at St. Peter's Square, too, and the Passover meal we call the Last Supper, and Golgotha - in a way. (Catechism, 1326, 1330, 1545)

Sort-of-related posts:
Background:

Friday, April 22, 2011

Earth Day, 2011: Pandas are Cute, but Let's Get a Grip

Today is Earth Day: a day "intended to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's natural environment," as a Wikipedia article puts it.

I live on Earth, and I like breathing clean air. I also think pandas are cute.

And one of my favorite quotes is this, from an early advocate of wilderness preservation:
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."
John Muir, "My First Summer in the Sierra" (1911)
(Apathetic Lemming of the North (October 17, 2010)
That said, I think that much of what passes for 'environmental awareness' has gotten dangerously silly.

I don't think that:
  • Humanity is 'killing Earth'
  • All change since about 1800 is somebody's fault
  • The world needs fewer Africans
That is not the same as thinking that we can do anything we want - and let somebody else's kids clean up the mess.

I'm a practicing Catholic - and there are rules against that sort of thing. (48, "Caritas in Veritate") Which I've discussed before. (April 12, 2011)

I'll probably be back to sane environmental awareness (it's not an oxymoron), but not today. Besides, I've posted on the topic before, in this and another bolg:More links:
Another blogger's take on yet another Earth Day:I don't think anybody really wants tangy air and turbid water. But I also think that folks who push 'environmental awareness' might profitably consider cranking back the rhetoric. That, and paying attention to facts, might make a difference.

And You Think You had a Bad Day? Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Other Mary

It's a gray, damp, chilly spring day here in central Minnesota. I'd just as soon have stayed inside, but it's Good Friday: so I've spending some time at church.

Today's not-quite-freezing drizzle, the leaden sky, and my matching mood make this not one of my better days. Even if I could, I wouldn't be doing cartwheels down the sidewalk.

It's 'one of those days.'

We all have them, I think - but I'm about as sure as I can be, that no dreary day I've experienced matches what Peter, Matthew, and all of that company went through nearly two thousand years ago.

Passover

Jesus and those closest to him had eaten the Passover meal together. My Lord made some - decidedly odd - statements then:
" 14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. 17 I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.' "
(Matthew 26:26-29)
Folks who grow up in nominally-Christian cultures may be so familiar with that passage, that the cannibalistic references don't register.

Almost two millennia back, when Jesus had that Passover meal with his associates? Folks definitely 'got it.' And didn't like what this 'great man' had to say. At all. That's not guesswork on my part, John wrote about what happened when Jesus "my flesh is true food." (John 6:55-69)

Which reminds me: I'm using mostly Matthew's Gospel in this post. That's not because I 'believe in' Matthew and not the other three Gospels. It's just that I got started with Matthew's account, and kept going in that book. Seeing divisions where none exist - or should exist - isn't anything new. (1 Corinthians 1:12) And that's another topic.

The Crucifixion: a Volunteer Mission

Jesus knew what was coming - and went to Gethsemane to pray. More specifically, to ask if he really had to go through his imminent death by torture. Again, we're maybe too familiar with the words:
"...'My Father, 25 if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.' "

"...'My Father, if it is not possible that this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done!' "
(Matthew 26:39, 42)
My Lord was not having a good day: and things were about to get worse.

Over the course of that night and the next morning, Jesus was condemned by the local authorities, sentenced to death - a sentence they couldn't carry out themselves, for legal and political reasons.

Jesus was hauled over to the Imperial authority - who, like so many public officials today, consulted an opinion poll. Many of the folks that day had probably been cheering Jesus into Jerusalem, not all that long before. They insisted that the Roman governor release a convicted criminal, and crucify Jesus.

Then, after a scourging that I've been told often killed the subject: Jesus was nailed up and left to die. Which he did. (Matthew 26:57-68, Matthew 27:11-26, 33-50)

Meanwhile, Peter had denied any involvement with Jesus. Three times. (Matthew 26:69-75)

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary followed the body of Jesus and "remained sitting there, facing the tomb." (Matthew 27:61)

Dead and Buried - for the Moment

Jesus was dead when his body went into that tomb. Quite sincerely dead. (John 19:33-35)

He didn't stay dead, though: that's why I went out in a cold drizzle today. And that's why I live in hope that I may be as blessed as the repentant thief. (Luke 23:42-43)

And that's yet another topic. (November 21, 2010)

Related posts:
Background:

Thursday, April 21, 2011

"EF," "OF," Jargon, and Making Sense

Jargon happens.

Back when I was working for a small publishing house, I might have gotten a memo that read:
"Take the VB OF to MSP, ASAP"
I'd have known that it meant:
"Take the Vocational Biographies order form to Main Street Press as soon as possible."
If you've worked this country, the odds are that you know that "ASAP" means "as soon as possible." You might even be able to guess that OF meant order form, and not "officer" (NATO), "objective force" (US Army), "owner's funds" (finance), "oxygen free," or something else. ("OF," AcronymFinder.com)

I don't think there's anything wrong with jargon, by itself. It's "a characteristic language of a particular group...," or "...specialized technical terminology characteristic of a particular subject" (Princeton's WordNet) When folks live or work together, I think it's natural to develop a sort of linguistic shorthand to deal with ideas, actions, and objects that matter to that group.

On the other hand, jargon can - intentionally or not - be used to create stronger bonds between members of a group: and exclude 'outsiders.'

That may not be a particularly good idea.

"OF?" "EF?" What's That?

I found the acronyms "OF" and "EF" in the comments of a post in another blog.1 In context, it was highly probable that "OF" and "EF" referred to something having to do with Catholicism: and fairly probable that it referred to Mass, or possibly the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Confession.

But, since I hadn't run into those acronyms - in that context - I couldn't be sure.

Encountering something about Catholicism that I'm not familiar with is, well, a familiar experience for me. I'm a convert, and missed the rich cultural heritage that many 'cradle Catholics' have.

I was a little surprised when my wife didn't know about "OF" and "EF" in connection with the Church. My next stop was my father-in-law, a Deacon serving a trio of parishes (the last I heard). He hadn't run into those acronyms either: which did surprise me a bit.

It Must be True: I Found It on the Internet?

After a longer search than I expected, I found definitions for "OF" and "EF." In an online forum. I'd have preferred a more authoritative source - but it looks like there's a reason why more 'official' resources don't include definitions for those acronyms.

I've put excerpts from that thread at the end of this post. They include a statement by someone with the screen name Rickwood, who asserted:
"I really don't think I have ever met anyone who uses "Novus Ordo" or "NO" that didn't do so in a quietly demeaning way. Someone who otherwise made it clear they had personal problems with the OF. Using either "Novus Ordo" or "NO" typically says something very specific about the user -- and it's not positive."2
Rickwood was banned, apparently, some time after writing that. Whether there's a cause-effect connection or not, I don't know.

"EF," "OF," and Me

I don't plan to use "EF," "OF," or "NO." Not regularly, anyway. Partly because of what Rickwood wrote about the terms - and what happened to him. Again, I'm not sure if he got banned because he made those remarks about "EF," "OF," "NO," and the folks who use those terms. And that's another topic.

It's more because I'm trying to communicate - and using a particular clique's jargon doesn't seem like a good way to achieve that goal.

preV2tradcath's definitions make sense in context of the comment where I encountered them: and Rickwood's assertions go a long way toward explaining why it was so hard to find 'official' definitions.

I organized what preV2tradcath wrote, and added a bit from my general knowledge of the Catholic Church. Remember, I'm "some guy with a blog." Although I make an effort to accurate statements, I do not speak for the Church.

"EF," "NO," "OF," and "TLM:" Unofficial Definitions

Tentative definitions for some 'Catholic' terms:
EF
Extraordinary Form
Sometimes called TLM
HMC
Holy Mother Church
The Roman Catholic Church
Holy See
The Vatican
NO
Novus Ordo (Latin, "New Order")
OF
Ordinary Form
Mass, celebrated in the local language
Mass, celebrated in Latin, following current instructions from the Holy See
TLM
Traditional Latin Mass
Finding out that "EF" and "OF" are (apparently) connected to folks who don't like the Second Vatican Council explained why I couldn't find the terms in resources that follow the Holy See.

Don't get me wrong: I like the Latin language. I've celebrated Mass - in Latin. That's specifically allowed by the Holy See, by the way.3 But we're not required to celebrate the Mass in Latin - even if someone who's old enough to remember 'pre-Vatican II' wants it that way.

I suspect using English, or Byelorussian, or Swahili, or whatever folks nearby understand, is allowed because the Holy See takes the Great Commission seriously. (Matthew 28:16-20)

Jesus telling us to "make disciples of all nations" thing doesn't seem to leave much room for exclusivity. And that's yet another topic.

Somewhat-related posts:
Background:

Foontnotes:

1 "Crisis in the blogosphere"
Leadkindlylight blog (April 20, 2011) (Particularly Comment by Paul Mallinder)
2 "Traditional Catholic Definition...," Catholic Answers Forums, catholic.com (August 31, 2008)
3 "On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist"
Committee on Divine Worship, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (April 23, 2004) (Particularly 112., Chapter V | Certain Other Matters Concerning the Eucharist: "...Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin." "Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 36 §1; Code of Canon Law, can. 928.")

Excerpts from a discussion thread on Catholic Answers Forums, catholic.com (August 31, 2008):
"Aug 31, '08, 6:16 pm
"preV2tradcath preV2tradcath is offline
"Registering

"Join Date: February 17, 2008
"Posts: 751
"Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
"Send a message via ICQ to preV2tradcath
"Default Re: Traditional Catholic Definition...
"Quote:
"Originally Posted by stacybks View Post
"Sorry, not to be a pest nor rude... but I'm not used to all the abbreviations and have no understanding of them...

"Could someone please water down brotherhrolf's post in dummy terms?
"HMC = Holy Mother Church
"NO = Novus Ordo, sometimes now called the OF, or Ordinary Form. It is the new Mass in the vernacular, though it can also be said in the original Latin, used in most Catholic parishes today.
"EF = Extraordinary Form, sometimes called TLM or Traditional Latin Mass. It is the Mass that was used everywhere in the Latin rite before the Second Vatican Council and the changes."
("Traditional Catholic Definition...," Catholic Answers Forums, catholic.com)
And a little later:
"Aug 31, '08, 6:42 pm
"Rickwood Rickwood is offline
"Banned

"Join Date: July 24, 2008
"Posts: 458
"Default Re: Traditional Catholic Definition...
"Quote:
"Originally Posted by preV2tradcath View Post
"HMC = Holy Mother Church
"NO = Novus Ordo, sometimes now called the OF, or Ordinary Form. It is the new Mass in the vernacular, though it can also be said in the original Latin, used in most Catholic parishes today.
"EF = Extraordinary Form, sometimes called TLM or Traditional Latin Mass. It is the Mass that was used everywhere in the Latin rite before the Second Vatican Council and the changes.
" 'Novus Ordo' and especially 'NO' are pejorative slurs at this point in history. The Church certainly doesn't commonly refer to the Mass of Paul XI as either the "Novus Ordo" or the "NO" Mass. I think if one did some digging one could unearth 1-2 official documents in total that used "Novus Ordo" and that's it.
"I really don't think I have ever met anyone who uses "Novus Ordo" or "NO" that didn't do so in a quietly demeaning way. Someone who otherwise made it clear they had personal problems with the OF. Using either "Novus Ordo" or "NO" typically says something very specific about the user -- and it's not positive."
("Traditional Catholic Definition...," Catholic Answers Forums, catholic.com)

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.