Monday, October 31, 2011

7,000,000,000 People, More or Less: Why I'm Not Alarmed

Depending on who you listen to, the 7,000,000,000th member of humanity was born at two minutes past midnight today. Or, not. Since we don't have absolutely accurate, up-to-date, and verifiable statistics for everyone, that 'seven billionth' person is an educated guess.1

Still, 7,000,000,000 is a whole lot more folks than live here in Sauk Centre, Minnesota. Or in Minnesota's Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area, for that matter.

I did a little checking, and found out that everybody's going to die horribly in maybe a month or so: If I make a few assumptions. Here's the data I started with. To the best of my knowledge, it's accurate:2

Area required for one human: Square miles Square kilometers Square meters
Ideal conditions 7 18 18,129,916
Not-so-ideal conditions 500 1,295 1,294,994,000

That's what it takes to support one homo sapiens sapiens.

Here's how much land - and water - we've got to work with:

Earth: Square miles Square kilometers Square meters
Total area 196,949,971 510,098,061 510,098,061,490,348
Land area 58,552,330 151,649,832 151,649,832,072,040
Land area, excluding Antarctica 53,452,330 138,440,893 138,440,893,272,040

After a few simple calculations, I had the number of individual human beings Earth could support. Making, as I said, a few assumptions.

'Absolute maximum sustainable human population' for Earth, under ideal conditions, using:
  • All land, including Antarctica
    • 8,364,000
  • All land, and water
    • 28,135,000
  • Current world population (estimate)
    • 7,000,000,000
'Obviously,' we're doomed!

'What is Wrong With This Picture?'

If that crazy conclusion I gave was accurate, humanity would have starved to death a long time ago.3 I made it look like we were about 1,000 times over Earth's 'carrying capacity' by leaving out some important information.

Those "ideal conditions" are for folks who get their food by hunting and gathering. Nothing wrong with that, from an ethical point of view: but most of us stopped living that way thousands of years back.

Here's a somewhat more complete set of data:2

Area required for one human: Square miles Square kilometers Square meters
Hunting and gathering (ideal) 7 18 18,129,916
Hunting and gathering (not-so-ideal) 500 1,295 1,294,994,000
Today (cultivated land) 0.0008 0.0022 2,175.50
1975 NASA study [tiny value] [tiny value] 61.00

What made the difference was agriculture: a technology we've been developing for maybe ten thousand years. Give or take a millennium. On average, around the world, we're able to support about a thousand people on one square mile of farmland.

So, why were people starving in Sudan? In that case, the 'civilized' folks in the northern half of the country were keeping food from getting to the 'natives' in the south. Folks in the Darfur area recently won independence from their former masters, and that's another topic.

At the Utter Pinnacle of Human Achievement?!

I know that folks in some parts of the world have trouble getting enough to eat. I think it's a matter of inefficient and/or corrupt supply systems and old-school agricultural technology, more than humanity having hit a physical limit for food production.

One reason for my cautious optimism is that I ran into a design study in 1975 that involved pushing agricultural production to the limits of what was possible at the time. The numbers were, I think, probably optimistic: but they were also far beyond what we're doing today.

We are not even close to using all the knowledge and techniques we have today. And I do not think that human beings have reached the end of our inventiveness.

What? No Anguished Hand-Wringing?!

I know that some people lack food and other necessities. I think that's wrong.

I also think the answer is not seeing to it that there are fewer people in impoverished areas.

People have a remarkable track record for finding solutions to problems. The solutions haven't been perfect: but they often work well enough.

I see little indication that humanity has suddenly become bereft of imagination: incapable of improving on whatever technology we're using.

The job at hand, I think, is to meet the immediate needs of folks who need food, shelter, clothing, or medical help. It's the 'neighborly' thing to do.

Somewhat-related posts:
More:
In the news:

1 Excerpt from the news:
"7 Billionth Person Born (Or Maybe More. Or Less. Who Knows?)"
FoxNews.com (October 31, 2011)

"With the birth of Danica May Camacho in Manila at two minutes before midnight, the United Nations Population Fund announced that the world's population had hit a new landmark: 7 billion people now fill the blue spinning globe we call home.

"Or maybe not.

"The U.S. Census Bureau comes to a very different conclusion, pegging the world's current population at 6,971,933,858 -- a difference of more than 28 million people. In other words, the U.S. Census Bureau guesses that the U.N. has overcounted by more than twice the current population of California. It argues that the world's population won't reach 7 billion until sometime in March of 2012.

"Other estimates are even further off.

"The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, an Austrian group that studies world population, argues that the world's 7 billionth person might not be born until July 2014.

"The U.N.'s number has many scratching their heads, and asking how the agency counts people. Just how did the U.N. reach its conclusion?

"The U.N. admits the number is only an estimate.

"Amid the millions of births and deaths around the world each day -- and the poor demographic information currently being gathered -- it's impossible to pinpoint the arrival of the globe's 7 billionth occupant with any sort of accuracy.

" 'All demographic projections suffer from two kinds of potential errors," wrote Sergei Scherbov, director of demographic analysis at the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital, in a recent paper. He argues that uncertain projections and incorrect data about the current population make it a challenge to precisely pin down an exact number...."
2 The data I'm using is accurate enough. Some of the assumptions are silly. Here's the data I've been using, and where I got it:
Earth: Square miles Square kilometers Square meters
Total area 196,949,971 510,098,061 510,098,061,490,348
Land area 58,552,330 151,649,832 151,649,832,072,040
Land area, excluding Antarctica 53,452,330 138,440,893 138,440,893,272,040
Land under cultivation, 11% of land surface 5,879,756 15,228,498 15,228,498,259,924
Potential cultivatible land, 20% of landing surface
10,690,466
27,688,179 27,688,178,654,408
Area required for one human: Square miles Square kilometers Square meters
Hunting and gathering (ideal) 7 18 18,129,916
Hunting and gathering (not-so-ideal) 500 1,295 1,294,994,000
Today (cultivated land) 0.0008 0.0022 2,175.50
1975 NASA study [tiny value] [tiny value] 61.00
Today: Square miles Square kilometers Square meters
Population 7,000,000,000 (more or less)
Cultivated land 5,879,756 510,098,061 510,098,061,490,348
People/unit of cultivated land 1,191 460 0.0005
Sources:
  • Encyclopedia Britannica (1966)
    • Earth
      P. 947, vol. 7
    • Hunting and Gathering
      P. 895, vol. 11
  • "Space Settlements: A Design Study"
    Richard D. Johnson, NASA Ames Research Center; Charles Holbrow, Colgate University; Scientific and Technical Information Service, NASA (1975)
  • "Reader's Digest Atlas of the World
    Project Editor Joseph L. Gardner (1987)
3 Looks like it takes a month or two to die of starvation:

Angels, Demons, Theological Hooey, and Redemption

Last week's post about Christopher Marlowe's "...Faustus" featured the bit where Doctor Faustus asks for a wife, and gets "a DEVIL drest like a WOMAN, with fire-works."

Today, I'm picking up where Faustus almost changes his mind.

Return of the Bipolar Duo

Mephistopheles has just said that man must be niftier than Heaven, because Heaven was made for man. "Fairer" is the word Marlowe used, actually. Back to the play:
"...FAUSTUS. If it were made for man, 'twas made for me:
I will renounce this magic and repent.


"Enter GOOD ANGEL and EVIL ANGEL.

"GOOD ANGEL. Faustus, repent; yet God will pity thee.

"EVIL ANGEL. Thou art a spirit; God cannot pity thee.

"FAUSTUS. Who buzzeth in mine ears I am a spirit?
Be I a devil, yet God may pity me;
Ay, God will pity me, if I repent.


"EVIL ANGEL. Ay, but Faustus never shall repent.
[Exeunt ANGELS.]...
"
("The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus")

Heaven, Hell, and Retirement Plans

First of all, just what is Heaven? And is it really better than Hell?

If Heaven is what's shown in some cartoons - all puffy clouds, pastel colors, and people holding radically under-stringed harps - it'd be awfully bland for my taste.

Then there's the disturbing notion that Heaven is infested with the sort of self-righteous pests most of us would cross the street to avoid:


(ArizonaLincoln (talk), via Wikipedia, used w/o permission)

If Heaven really is a sort of pastel wasteland inhabited by disciples of malignant virtue, the old quip might be true: "Heaven for climate, and hell for company."

Happily, that's not the case.

"Supreme and Definitive Happiness?" Sounds Good

The Catholic Church's discussions of Heaven and Hell lack the sort of vivid descriptions I've run into elsewhere: golden towers, flaming gorges, that sort of thing. What we do get is, I think, much more useful for planning purposes:
"HEAVEN: Eternal life with God; communion of life and love with the Trinity and all the blessed. Heaven is the state of supreme and definitive happiness, the goal of the deepest longings of humanity (1023).

"HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033). "
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary) (links added by me)
So: I've got a choice:
  • "Supreme and definitive happiness" with God
  • "Definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed"
In one way, it's a 'no-brainer.' Obviously I'd prefer an eternity of "supreme and definitive happiness" to any alternative. In a way, that's what the drug culture was about, a half-century back: desperate folks trying to find happiness in a world that made no sense to them.1 And I'm getting off-topic.

Prayer of the Tax Collector

Or, maybe not so much. Some of the folks I've known don't seem to be good candidates for Heaven. Like the one who killed herself.2

For that matter, when I look in a mirror, I see someone who had better pray like the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14. At the end of all things, I may find that "I have friends in both places."3

Do I have any right to say who is going to Heaven, or Hell? No. We're told to "stop judging" others. (Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37-38, 41-42; and see footnote 10 in Luke:6) On the other hand, we're expected to exercise 'good judgment.' I've been over that before:

Spirits, Faustus, and Theological Hooey

Last week I wrote that "EVIL ANGEL fed Faustus the sort of theological hooey that seems to resonate in that learned head." Here's what I was talking about:
"...EVIL ANGEL. [to Faustus] Thou art a spirit; God cannot pity thee.

"FAUSTUS. Who buzzeth in mine ears I am a spirit?
Be I a devil, yet God may pity me;
Ay, God will pity me, if I repent.


"EVIL ANGEL. Ay, but Faustus never shall repent.
[Exeunt ANGELS.]...
"
("The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus")
I'm no expert on Elizabethan English, but in this passage "spirit" probably means "any incorporeal supernatural being that can become visible (or audible) to human beings." (Princeton's WordNet) GOOD ANGEL and EVIL ANGEL are "spirits" in this sense. So is Mephistopheles.

Doctor John Faustus isn't.

Angels aren't Human

He can't be. He's a human being: albeit a fictional one. At this point in the play, Faustus has been making decisions that are bad: but he's no devil.

Despite what we've seen in some recent television series, human beings don't become angels when we die. We don't become demons, either. We're human beings.

Angels aren't human. They're "spiritual, non-corporeal beings." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 328-330) "Corporeal" means "having material or physical form or substance." (Princeton's WordNet) Angels are non-corporeal: they don't have bodies.

Demons or devils are angels who decided to rebel against God. (Catechism, 391-395.)

Humans aren't Angels

Human beings are animals. But not just animals.

I've been over this before.4 Humans are:
  • Animals
    • A special sort of animal
      • Endowed with reason
      • Capable of
        • Understanding
        • Discernment
      (Catechism, 1951)
  • People
    • Rational and therefore like God
      • Made in the image and likeness of God
      (Catechism, 1700-1706)
    • Created with free will
    • Master over our actions
      (Catechism, 1730)
    (Adapted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
    (first posted August 31, 2011)

Confusing the Already-Confused

Offhand, I'd say that EVIL ANGEL is trying to confuse Doctor Faustus: which doesn't seem like such a difficult job. Remember, John Faustus recently explained that their contract was null and void: because Hell didn't really exist.

Not believing that Hell exists isn't all that remarkable, by itself. For most of my life, one of the easy ways to appear sophisticated was to deny the existence of Hell, Heaven, or God. Or to claim that everything is god, and that's another topic.

Dealing with fallen angels isn't all that remarkable, either, sadly.5

Calling up a demon, negotiating a contract with the creature: and then telling the demon that Hell doesn't exist?! Now that's remarkable.

Sin, Redemption, and Doctor Faustus

The Catholic Church has a few things to say about sin, including this:
"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.'121"
(Catechism, 1869)
I am a sinner. There's nothing unusual about that. We live in a fallen world: and that's almost another topic.

My soul needs redemption. The alternative - is simply not acceptable.

Redemption is:
  • The act of delivering from sin or saving from evil
  • Repayment of the principal amount of a debt or security at or before maturity (as when a corporation repurchases its own stock
  • The act of purchasing back something previously sold
    (Princeton's WordNet)
Since I'm a practicing Catholic, I have to accept Jesus of Nazareth as my Redeemer. Actually, I don't have to: but again, the alternative simply isn't acceptable.

Here's a little of what the Church has to say about Jesus the Christ:
"Christ's death is the unique and definitive sacrifice

"Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through 'the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,'439 and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the 'blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'440

"This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441 First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442

"Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

" 'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.'443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who 'makes himself an offering for sin,' when 'he bore the sin of many,' and who 'shall make many to be accounted righteous,' for 'he shall bear their iniquities.'444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 613-615)
There's more, of course. There always seems to be more.

Let's see what Faustus says after EVIL ANGEL says: "Ay, but Faustus never shall repent."
"FAUSTUS. My heart's so harden'd, I cannot repent:
Scarce can I name salvation, faith, or heaven,
But fearful echoes thunder in mine ears,
'Faustus, thou art damn'd!' then swords, and knives,
Poison, guns, halters, and envenom'd steel
Are laid before me to despatch myself;
And long ere this I should have slain myself,
Had not sweet pleasure conquer'd deep despair.
Have not I made blind Homer sing to me
Of Alexander's love and Oenon's death?
And hath not he, that built the walls of Thebes
With ravishing sound of his melodious harp,
Made music with my Mephistophilis?
Why should I die, then, or basely despair?
I am resolv'd; Faustus shall ne'er repent.—
Come, Mephistophilis, let us dispute again,
And argue of divine astrology.100
Tell me, are there many heavens above the moon
Are all celestial bodies but one globe,
As is the substance of this centric earth?
"
("The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus")
That footnote is a bit interesting: to me, anyway:
"[ And argue of divine astrology, &c.— In THE HISTORY OF DR. FAUSTUS, there are several tedious pages on the subject; but our dramatist, in the dialogue which follows, has no particular obligations to them.]"
(Footnote 100, "The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus")
Looks like Christopher Marlowe showed compassion for his audience - or didn't want them to walk out - and edited his source material. Even so, what follows seems a trifle long-winded. More about that, next week.

Other posts in this series:
Vaguely-related posts:
Background, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
  • Angels
  • Devils/demons
  • Heaven
  • Hell
  • Redemption
    • Christ's death as the sacrifice of,
      613, 616
    • The Church as the instrument for the redemption of all,
      776
    • At the center of the Good News,
      571, 601
    • And the Eucharist,
      1372
    • Extension of redemptive work,
      634
    • Life of Christ as a mystery of,
      517, 635, 1067
    • For many,
      605
    • Mary serving in the mystery of,
      494, 508
    • Meaning of the redemption can be understood by faith alone,
      573
    • Proclaiming and promising of,
      55, 64, 601
  • Repentence
    • 393 (repentance is possible before death, not after)
  • Sin
    1846-1869
    (Not an exhaustive index)
"...Faustus" excerpts in these posts taken from:

1 I don't think what happened to Jimi Hendrix and others was a good thing. At all. But I was one of 'those crazy kids:' and understand that Timothy "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" Leary didn't sound so crazy at the time. Particularly compared to parents and others who demanded lockstep conformity to their dreary preferences. I've mentioned "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" (1956) before.

Post-WWII America really was, I think, "Happy Days:" for someone like Howard Cunningham in that long-running television series. Between economic boom times, veteran benefits, and cultural leftovers from an earlier age, America was a great place for someone who was an adult, male, and white. I think being a tad unobservant helped, too.

I remember the 'good old days,' when "she's as smart as a man" was supposed to be a compliment, and a clergyman named King was still alive. What happened after the '60s could have been better: but America was desperately overdue for cultural and legal upgrades. I've posted about conformity and getting a grip before:
By the way, about "veteran benefits:" I think they make sense, to an extent. And that's a topic for another blog:
2 Suicide is a difficult topic. I've discussed it a few time, including this post:
3 I found the anonymous "Heaven for climate, and hell for company" quotation on page 378 of Evan Esar's "20,000 quips & quotes" (1968). Back on page 377, near the start of the section of quotes on Heaven and Hell, I found ones that were attributed to specific individuals, like Ed Howe, Ben Johnson, Lincoln Steffens: and Mark Twain. Including these:
"I don't like to commit myself about heaven and hell - you see, I have friends in both places."

"When I think of the number of disagreeable people that I know who have gone to a better world, I am sure hell won't be so bad at all." (Mark Twain, 377, Evan Esar's "20,000 quips & quotes" (1968))
No rant, by the way: Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain was no theologian, and lived in a place and time that was at least as spiritually confused as today's America. Not in the same way, of course.

4 I've posted about angels - both kinds - and human beings before:
5 I've posted a few times about the reality of demons, and the screwball notions folks have:

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Obedience, Family, God, and an Overdue Post

I finally got September's guest post ready:Here's how it starts:
"Deacon Folger tells of a time when a CCD teacher was teaching the 10 Commandments to her young students. After explaining the command to 'Honor your father and mother,' she asked the class, 'Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat our brother and sisters?'

"A bright young boy's hand shot up. 'Thou shall not kill?'

"Today's Gospel story reminds us of the commandment to honor our parents. The first son first refuses his father's request, but later decides to obey it and goes to work in the vineyard. The second son promises to do what his father asks, but never gets around to it. The old adage was never truer: the road to hell is surely paved with good intentions...."
("26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, 2011" (September 26, 2011))

Coming this Monday: Halloween

Tomorrow is October 31, 2011. It's significant, more or less, is several ways. It's:
  • A Monday
    • The day between Sunday and Tuesday
  • The last day of October
    • Time to flip to November
      • Since I've got a 12-month calendar by my desk
  • Halloween
    • Also called
      • Hallowe'en
      • Allhallows Eve
    • The evening before All Saints' Day
    • Often devoted to pranks played by young people
      (Princeton's WordNet)
I've got a few problems with how some folks act around Halloween: but this post isn't a rant about how awful the holiday is.

Satanic Plots by the Bushel

As I've said before, I grew up in an area infested with radio preachers: the sort who threw Bible trivia, numerology, and the end times prophecy du jour into a blender - and hit 'puree.'

These painfully pious folks seemed to be awfully good at hating things. And, sometimes, people. They also had a habit of identifying what they didn't like as "Satanic." As I recall, a short list of "Satanic" plots and influences often included:
  • Women wearing slacks
  • Rock and Roll
  • Commies
  • Catholics
  • New technology
Then there was my favorite, from just a few decades back: a fellow on national radio, complaining about "the effete habit" of men growing beards. You can't make that kind of thing up.

Don't get me wrong. Satan is quite real. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 391-395) But that doesn't mean that everything I'm turned off by is "Satanic." Or that God's eternal law is strangely similar to the cultural mores and musical tastes of a particular American subculture, ca. 1945-55.

With Friends Like These - - -

I don't doubt the sincerity of folks who really believe that the latest 'end times prophecy' will finally get it right. By the way, we're due to read about Harold Camping's new-and-improved Apocalypse prediction in November.

I also don't doubt that, in their own way, they're trying to follow Jesus the Christ: that they're Christians. But the recurring shenanigans are sometimes downright embarrassing for the rest of us.

Unintended Consequences

Ever been around, when someone didn't keep a blender's lid on tight? That sort of food processor performance art is a pretty good metaphor for the weird version of Christianity I learned about on the radio - and sometimes face-to-face.

Happily, my parents were sensible folks, and went to a nice, normal, American mainstream Protestant church. Just the same, those nut jobs encouraged me to take a long, hard, look at religions. Eventually I became a Catholic. I'm quite certain that's not what the folks ranting about the "Whore of Babylon" and the Communist menace had in mind.

Everybody's Different

One reason I like being Catholic is that we're not expected to be poor imitations of some arbitrary 'real Christian.'

Even "identical" twins aren't quite identical, and God made each of the 7,000,000,000 or so folks alive today - including the 1,100,000,000 (give or take) Catholics - as one-of-a-kind individuals. It's that one body - many members thing. (1 Corinthians 12)

I've posted about being part of a Church that's literally catholic before:

Broken Pumpkins, Broken Lives, and Getting a Grip

I'm not happy about the smashed pumpkins I see this time of year. But I don't let myself get too upset about the matter. It's a small problem, on at least two scales.

Judging from the fraction of each year's Halloween decorations that get vandalized, there can't be all that many folks who get their jollies by ruining jack-o-lanterns. It's hardly what I'd call an 'epidemic:' But then I'm not a news editor trying to pump up circulation.

Besides, the waste in resources is fairly minimal. Even in these difficult economic times, I have trouble imagining that a household will be wiped out because pumpkin rinds landed on the front sidewalk.

Compared to problems like drug addiction, disordered marital relationships, or threats to freedom, smashed pumpkins just don't stack up.

I suppose I could try to be conventionally distressed about all those awful costumes people wear, or how orange and black aren't 'nice' colors. The fact is, I *like* the occasionally-silly artwork we see this time of year:


These folks were ready early (The sign on the left says, "Treats Inside (tricks optional)." October 11, 2007.


Windy day: good thing those decorations were firmly attached. October 31, 2007.


Halloween yard decorations: with crash landing
These folks did a nice job. That looks like a serious crash landing. October 20, 2007.

My household doesn't do yard decorations very much, but I like to come up with some 'holiday' art. Like these, from 2007 and 2010:





The way I see it, none of the commandments say we're supposed to be 'sour saints.' I figure that there's quite enough grimness around: and that a bit of humor is okay.

The Decalog doesn't say "go have fun," either: possibly because that isn't the sort of thing most folks have to be ordered to do. It'd be like being ordered to breathe.

And that's another topic.

Vaguely-related posts:
Background:

Friday, October 28, 2011

My Take on the News: Religion, Politics, and Freedom

Quite a few folks are scared silly of religious beliefs in politics: or act as if they are. I sympathize with them, a bit.

Conspicuous, Maybe: But Not Typical

Anyone who was educated in America's government schools, and reads mainstream publications, could easily have learned what religious people are like. Just look at them!!


(Reuters photo, via FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)


(Oakland Blog, via SFGate, used w/o permission)

Fred Phelps' little band of protestors, and the Camping bunch, aren't typical Christians.

But then, I would say that: I have religious beliefs, and take them seriously. Put on one set of cultural blinders, and 'everybody knows' that people who take their religious beliefs seriously are like. We're not part of the "reality-based community."1

I think the establishment2 today has alternatively-accurate notions about what 'religious beliefs' are, and I'll get back to that.

Here's my pick from this week's news:
  1. Faith, Reason, and Politics
  2. Religious Liberty Threatened: 'It Can't Happen Here?'
  3. Another Bishop and Religious Freedom - Archbishop, Actually

1. Faith, Reason, and Politics

"For Santorum, faith and reason are benchmarks for politics"
Michelle Bauman, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (October 27, 2011)

"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum says that reason does not conflict with his Catholic faith, but rather works with it to guide his political decisions.

" 'When the reason is right and the faith is true, they end up at the same place,' Santorum told CNA in an early October interview.

" 'Faith and reason. The conclusion must satisfy both.'

"Santorum, who served as a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007, has expressed his support for the Church's teaching on key social issues.

"His Catholic beliefs have drawn attention in the media since he announced his bid for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.

" 'People say that they make their decisions based on their conscience. What forms their conscience?' asked Santorum.

" 'Clearly for me, as the Church teaches, your conscience is formed by faith and reason,' he said. 'And so I apply both.'..."
"Faith and reason?! Although loudly loony religious folks seem determined to make Christianity look like a psychiatric condition, "faith" and "reason" aren't mutually contradictory. As I said before, the fellow in this comic isn't all there is to religion:


(Non Sequitur, Wiley Miller, used w/o permission)

One of the reasons I became a Catholic is that the Church doesn't make us check our brains at the door. And that's another topic.


(The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, used w/o permission)

By the way, Rick Santorum showed how faith and reason apply to a situation where some people aren't, legally, considered fully human.3

Mainstream Santorum Coverage: It Could be Worse

Mainstream op-eds about Rick Santorum that I ran into were fairly reasonable:
"Santorum: The next flavor of the month?"
Christian Heinze, The Hill blog (October 26, 2011)

"As Herman Cain's star appears to be declining, there is already media speculation on who will be the next 'it flavor' of the 2012 race.

"Their conclusion: It might be former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) - the only major presidential candidate who hasn't experienced a polling boomlet.

"Their reasoning: ... Iowa's socially conservative electorate is fertile ground for the Catholic conservative ... he even got an endorsement of sorts from conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, who told Santorum earlier this year that he could 'kiss him in the mouth' for maintaining a principled stand....

"...His [Santorum's] most obvious departure from conservative orthodoxy came during 2003 - a time when many Republicans were departing from conservative orthodoxy. While serving as Pennsylvania's junior senator....

"...Beyond a philosophical problem, there was the little matter of the fact that the program was passed with no discernible means of paying for it - the height of heresy to Tea Partiers.

"So far, Santorum's explanations for his support of the plan have been somewhat vague and only half-convincing. He told The American Spectator earlier this year that he didn't fight the drug plan because no one agreed...."
I've heard politics described as 'the art of the possible.' There's something to that definition. I've known a few folks who were politicos: and the sensible ones knew the difference between a nifty idea that would never pass a vote, and an adequate proposal that would.

Two words there, Catholic and conservative, may both be accurate as descriptions of candidate Santorum. If a person is successful in America's national politics, the odds are very good that the politico is either conservative or liberal. Or at least can be put into one of those two intellectual pigeonholes.

I think that there's more to world than "conservative" and "liberal," and I've posted about that before. Including what's linked under "Politics" in "Related posts."

The Catholic Church is "obviously" conservative, since we're taught that
We're also forbidden to unjustly discriminate against folks who have disordered sexual urges, by the way. (Catechism, 2358)

What I haven't read about is how the Catholic Church is 'obviously' liberal because of what we're taught about
  • Capital punishment
    (Catechism, 2267)
  • Social Justice
    (Catechism, 1928-1942)
    • Including environmental issues
      (Catechism, 2415)
Actually, the Catholic Church isn't "conservative," or "liberal." For the two millennia since my Lord put Peter in charge, we've been passing along what we received: which boils down to "love God, love your neighbor."

It's simple, in a way:
Complications start when folks start looking for loopholes - and the Holy See explains that "everybody" means "everybody." No wonder our beliefs are called "simplistic," and that's another topic.

"Conservative Christian Activists," "Evangelicals," and Getting a Grip

"Santorum could siphon off religious conservative support from GOP field"
Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor, Belief Blog (June 6, 2011)

"Rick Santorum appears to face long odds in the race for the White House, but he threatens to siphon off religious conservative support from better known GOP candidates like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty during the primary season.

"Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, officially launched his presidential campaign on Monday.

"Influential conservative Christian activists mention Santorum, businessman Herman Cain and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann – who hasn't yet declared her candidacy - as Republican White House contenders who could attract major evangelical support, even if they're long shots for the GOP nomination, let alone the White House.

" 'I don't see a candidate that has Huckabee's skill in being able to communicate with evangelical language and style,' says Gary Marx, executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, which focuses on issues important to religious conservatives.

"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister who rode evangelical support to a win in Iowa and a handful of other states in the 2008 primaries, has announced he's not running for president this time around...."
I've said this before, and probably will again:
  • "Evangelicals" are Christians
  • Some conservatives are Christians
  • Not all Christians are "evangelical"
    • In the American sense of the word
  • Not all Christians are conservative
  • The Catholic Church is
    • Christian
    • "Liberal"
      • In some ways
    • "Conservative"
      • In some ways
    • Not obliged to fit into contemporary Western culture's philosophical niches

2. Religious Liberty Threatened: 'It Can't Happen Here?'

"Bishop Lori testifies on threats to religious liberty, urges action"
Michelle Bauman, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (October 26, 2011)

"The U.S. bishops' point man on religious liberty urged the U.S. Congress to protect the right to religious freedom in America because of several actions taken by the Obama administration....

"...'Not coincidentally, religious liberty is first on the list in the Bill of Rights, the charter of our Nation’s most cherished and fundamental freedoms,' he said....

"...Bishop Lori said that his brother bishops are greatly concerned by recent attacks on religious freedom. In his testimony, he outlined several recent 'threats to religious liberty' in the United States....

"...regulations issued in August by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to require coverage of sterilization and contraception, including abortifacients, in nearly all private health insurance plans....

"...new requirements for contractors who work with human trafficking victims. Due to these regulations, he said, the bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services, which previously worked with the government to aid victims of trafficking 'will be barred from participation in the program because they cannot in conscience provide the "full range" of reproductive services - namely, abortion and contraception.'

"Likewise, Bishop Lori noted, the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development is increasingly requiring contractors to provide contraception in relief and development programs across the world...."
I've been impressed at how fervently some Euro-Americans strive to keep Africans from having 'too many' babies: and see nothing wrong with doing so.

I've ranted about that before:
Back to that article.
"The bishop also criticized the federal Department of Justice for not only fai...ing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act but also 'filing briefs actively attacking DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice.'

"He said the Department of Justice has further undermined religious liberty in the 'ministerial exception' case, Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC, which is currently before the Supreme Court. He said that the department 'needlessly attacked the very existence of the exception, in opposition to a vast coalition of religious groups urging its preservation through their amicus curiae briefs.'..."
(CNA)
As a practicing Catholic I have to value and support religious freedom. (Catechism, 2104-2109) For everybody. (Catechism, 2106) I've been over this before, and put links to a few posts under "Religious freedom" in "Related posts," below.

3. Another Bishop and Religious Freedom - Archbishop, Actually

"Religious liberty threatened in America, Archbishop Gomez warns"
Marianne Medlin, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (October 26, 2011)

"In an article for First Things, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles pointed to several recent examples of religious freedom being suppressed in the U.S. and warned that the basis of the country's democracy is at stake.

" 'There is much evidence to suggest that our society no longer values the public role of religion or recognizes the importance of religious freedom as a basic right,' Archbishop Gomez said on Oct. 25.

" 'America’s founders understood that our democracy depends on Americans' being moral and virtuous,' he wrote. 'They knew the best guarantee for this is a civil society in which individuals and religious institutions were free to live, act, and vote according to their values and principles.'..."
Once again: Tony Alamo, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps are not all there is to religion. Or Christianity. I don't think any of them are even typical of American Protestants.

Harold Camping represents another sort of American wannabe prophet: but again, that lot isn't at the 50th percentile. Not even close.

And none of the above are Catholic.

The Catholic Point of View: From the Catholic Church

I can, in a way, understand why folks don't like it when the Catholic Church says that some self-destructive behavior they enjoy is wrong. Smokers reacted that way when 'no smoking' rules were expanded. And that's another topic. Topics.

But - and I realize that this may not happen in my lifetime - I'd appreciate it if critics of the Catholic Church took the trouble to learn a little bit about the Church. Before letting their assumptions and assumptions take hold.

It's not all that hard to find out about the Catholic Church: from the Church. American bishops make a pretty good effort at addressing concerns of folks in this country: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB / usccb.org) Headquarters has a pretty set of websites, too:
That's not a complete list, and there's a disproportionate number of links to English-language sites. That's the only language I'm really familiar with. It's also the language used in this blog, so it's the only one I can be confident that you understand, too.

The "Vatican Secret Archives" aren't "secret" in the "top secret" sense of the word, and that's another topic:
Related posts:
News and views:
Background:

1 An editor at The New York Times seems to think that people with religious beliefs:
  • Don't respect serious science
  • Don't believe verifiable history
  • Are not part of the "reality-based community"
I am not making this up:
""...But I do want to know if a candidate places fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon (the text, not the Broadway musical) or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country. It matters to me whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history - in short, belongs to what an official in a previous administration once scornfully described as 'the reality-based community.'..."
(Bill Keller, executive editor, The New York Times (August 25, 2011) - quoted on September 1, 2011 [emphasis mine])
I recognize that some folks have religious beliefs, take them seriously, and have strangely atavistic notions about creation. But I wish this editor, and many other of my 'betters,' would do a little research, and find out about Christians who don't believe the entire universe is a few thousand years old; and that the ground we stand on is floating on a vast ocean, under a bowl. As I've said before, not all Christians are dolts:
2 Back in "Happy Days" America, 'the establishment' was pretty much all Anglo, male, and conservative. That's changed. What hasn't changed so much is how 'the establishment' acts. I've been over this before:
3 Rick Santorum's take on a woman's right to kill her children get an abortion:
"...Santorum used the example of abortion to illustrate how faith and reason play complementary roles in guiding his political positions.

" 'The reasoned argument is simply this,' he explained. 'At the moment of conception, scientifically, biologically, that is a unique human being, with its own DNA. It is unique in the world, and it's alive, so it's a human life.'

" 'And I don't believe that the Constitution, as written, discriminates between some human life being people and other human life not being people.'

"He sees this principle of human dignity in the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision 'that was supposed to be cast as broadly as possible, to include people who were not seen as fully human.'

"Santorum explained that reason brought him to the conclusion that abortion is wrong, a conclusion that faith also showed him.

" 'The faith teaches very clearly that life is life at the moment of conception,' he said..."
(CNA)
That 14th Amendment and "people who were not seen as fully human" thing refers to slavery in the United States. It's a mess that we're still sorting out, 154 years after the infamous Dred Scott decision. I sincerely hope that the 'abortion and euthanasia' moral infarction can be corrected without a major war. And that's another topic.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Being Saved, the Narrow Gate, and All That

Today's Gospel reading is Luke 13:22-30. That's the part where we find:
"Someone asked him, 'Lord, will only a few people be saved?' He answered them, 'Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough....' "
(Luke 13:24-25)
There's a mess of opportunities for misunderstanding here. The one that crossed my mind first was what 'the First Church of Me and Thee' seems to think.

Having Standards, Getting a Grip

In a way, it's a comforting sort of faith; the notion that:
  • Heaven is
    • Populated exclusively by folks with similar tastes in
      • Clothing
      • Music
      • Hair styles
      • Entertainment
      • Politics
    • A sort of eternal 'members-only' social club
  • God is
    • Against things I don't like
    • For things I approve of
Back in my youth, a remarkable number of folks acted as if one of God's commands was that women dress just the way ladies did:
  • In America
  • From about 1945 to 1955
I've posted about that before.1

The Catholic Church has standards of behavior,2 including the way we dress: but they're a bit more, well, catholic, than what you'll get from the 'First Church of Fred.'

Faith and Works

Happily, since I'm a practicing Catholic: I don't need to guess what Luke 13: 22-30 'really' means:
"9 [22-30] These sayings of Jesus follow in Luke upon the parables of the kingdom (⇒ Luke 13:18-21) and stress that great effort is required for entrance into the kingdom (⇒ Luke 13:24) and that there is an urgency to accept the present opportunity to enter because the narrow door will not remain open indefinitely (⇒ Luke 13:25). Lying behind the sayings is the rejection of Jesus and his message by his Jewish contemporaries (⇒ Luke 13:26) whose places at table in the kingdom will be taken by Gentiles from the four corners of the world (⇒ Luke 13:29). Those called last (the Gentiles) will precede those to whom the invitation to enter was first extended (the Jews). See also ⇒ Luke 14:15-24."
(Footnote 9, Luke 13)
That "great effort is required for entrance into the kingdom" doesn't mean that Catholics are told we can earn a place in the Kingdom of God. We're not told that all we need to do is 'really believe,' either. Again, I've been over that before.3

By the way, the Jews weren't collectively responsible for the Crucifixion. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 597) We all were, and are, personally. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 597-599)

Am I 'Saved?'

For most of my life, I had major depression. I definitely have not "felt saved." Not even close.4 Add ADHD-inattentive to the mix, both undiagnosed until a few years ago: and that's another topic. Bottom line, I'm on medication now: which is an enormous improvement.5

But, am I "saved?" Since I don't go to the 'First Church of Fred,' or have beliefs like the fellow in Robert Burns' "Holy Willie's Prayer," there are folks who probably think I'm not.

Goofy theology bothers me, but letting it affect me is an option. I'm concerned about what my Lord has to say about the matter, since it's His opinion that counts.

So, am I "saved?"

Since I haven't died yet, I'm 'working out' my salvation. Philippians 2:12, and all that.

Wait a minute, though. Wasn't there a point in time when I was saved?

Yes.

That moment was about two thousand years back, on Golgotha.6

Predestination

Looking at the big picture, I'm either "saved:" or I'm not. Which brings up "predestination."

Doesn't God 'predestine' the 'good people' for Heaven, so I can get away with any sort of damned foolishness now?

No.

It doesn't work that way. Not at all. (Catechism, 600)

Sort-of-related posts:

1 The Catholic Church has standards, established by God, about how folks should act. We've also been around for two millennia, and stand on a foundation that goes back several thousand years more.

Quite a bit has changed since the Babylonian Empire went out of business, including:
  • Clothing
  • Technology
  • Politics
I think it's silly to act as if God wants everything to be the way it was when I was a teen: or any other period. More about that:
2 Like I said, the Catholic Church has standards. Which doesn't mean what you may have read in the papers.

One of our standards is that we are not - definitely, specifically, not - supposed to hate people. Any people:
3 It's "faith and works, not "faith or works." Yes, believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ is important. So is what a person does with that belief:
  • "Love God, love your neighbor"
    (Matthew 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-31)
  • My works and faith will be rewarded right after I die
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1021)
    • One way or another
My take on what's expected:
4 Not being 'hooked on a feeling, high on believing,' has its advantages. I've learned how to think about what I believe, instead of 'trusting my feelings,' or 'doing what my heart tells me.' That "Hooked On A Feeling" golden oldie was about the emotional rush we call 'being in love,' and that's another topic.

5 "On medication?" Aren't Christians supposed to trust God? Yes. I'm a Catholic Christian. We're expected to trust God: and not be stupid. I've posted about that sort of thing:
6 The death of my Lord, for the sake of my sins, is a pretty big deal. (Matthew 27:33-54, Mark 15:33-39, Luke 23:33-47, John 19:17-37, 2 Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 5:9) There's a pretty good summary of what's going on there in the Catechism, 600-617.

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.