Sunday, June 30, 2013

Not Yet, Lord!

Readings for June 30, 2013, 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time:

13th Sunday in Ordinary Time

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
June 30, 2013

Maybe a good title for this homily is 'not yet, Lord!'

A lady was taking her time browsing through everything at a yard sale. In a conversation with the homeowners she said, "my husband is going to be very angry when he finds out I stopped at this yard sale." "I'm sure he'll understand when you tell him about all the bargains," the owner replied. "Normally, yes," the lady said. "But he just broke his leg, and he's waiting for me to take him to the hospital to get it set."

Some things in life cannot be delayed. But we do delay them. Not for any sinister reason, but because we don't attach any real urgency to them.

The first reflection in today's commentary is concerned about doing the laundry. Which brings up a happening. As I was getting ready to go to retreat last weekend I found myself having to do laundry before I could go on retreat. As I was taking the washed out of the wash machine and putting it in the dryer I said, honey, here your enjoying yourself in heaven and I'm stuck with the wash. Some of you ladies are saying, that's not a big deal, but it seems like it was at the moment.

"Hurry up kids we are going to be late for Mass, mom!" "I have to find my shoes first." Or as sure as can be we are all entering the car to go to church or to wherever and someone will say, "I got to go to the bathroom." Of course all of us, who are parents, well know that all these things are important but why at this moment and most often as we should be ready for church and late already.

I think the gospel reading for today would assure us that this type of thing goes on all the time. We see Jesus walking along the road, and he encounters three men. The first man said to him. "I will follow you wherever you go." We've all probably felt like that at sometime or another: "I will follow you wherever you go."

We've had some mountaintop experiences, maybe some instances with them in Billy Graham's crusade that I remember as a kid. We used to listen to his crusades all the time on the radio and what's interesting about that is that as many people as would come to hear him and sometimes as many as hundred thousand people in the stadium packed for Billy's sermons and thousands would go up for an altar call as it was called.

Recently it was said that only between two and four percent of those who went forward on this altar call are still actively observing the Christian life. That's not to say that the crusade didn't do any good for there are lives of people who are touched in a beautiful way with these crusades but for the most of those who went forward it really didn't last. Maybe the will of god was not most important, or maybe they were saying as did say Saint Augustine, "Lord make me a Saint, not yet."

The point is, in some situations, we must say, "yes, Lord, I'm yours," but Christ knows you're just caught up in the moment. This was obviously the way it was with this first man who said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."

Notice: that Jesus response to him, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." Jesus seems to be saying to him in a gentle way: you don't know what you're asking, following me is not for the faint of heart. It's not for people who are concerned about material possessions or comfort.

It's for people who are ready to put it all on the line. It's not for people who get excited on one occasion, who respond for an hour to a nice, warm, spiritual feeling. It is for people who are ready to be Christ's men, Christ's women, regardless of the current circumstances or how they happen to be feeling at the moment. "Foxes have dens and birds have nests but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

Notice Jesus' encounter with second man. Jesus says to him, "Follow me." This man replies, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."

Here's a man suffering from 'not yet Lord, syndrome.'

We might wonder what he was doing talking to Jesus if his father just died? In the first century, the Jews buried the dead almost immediately. So obviously this was not at the moment, dead, but maybe advanced in age! as in our day it is the obligation of the son to bury the Dad.

Jesus' answer is a little harsh it seems, for he said, "let the dead bury the dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God." So what's this all about? We seem to be left hanging because there really is no good answer to that statement.

The third man makes a request that is just as responsible, "I will follow you, Lord: but first let me go back and say goodbye to my family." Hey, these are nice guys and they want to follow Jesus but they've got responsibilities. And so they would follow him, "yes, but first..." Jesus is just as short with this third man as he was with the others. Jesus says to him , "no one who puts their hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." Obviously Jesus regards the statement of the first man that he would follow him anywhere as superficial and replies to the second two as more excuses. He didn't really need any more halfhearted disciples. He wanted people who were ready to make a commitment.

Jesus wasn't looking for fans; he was looking for followers. Fans are easy to come by. Show the world that you are a winner, as the world defines a winner, and the world will regard you with adulation. Of course some of those fans will be fickle.

It is something like a few years ago when the Houston Astros were not enjoying the best baseball season, their fans got a little frustrated. We're told that a woman had left her season tickets on the dashboard of her car, forgetting to lock it, when she comes back she finds not only the two original tickets but two more so now she has four season tickets to the Astro baseball games.

Like the Astros Jesus doesn't want more fans. Fans are with you when you win or tie. Jesus has all the fans he needs. Jesus wants people who will walk in his footsteps daily regardless of the circumstances. Jesus wants people who will be with him whether he has ascended the throne or is crucified on a cross. Jesus wants people who mirror his compassion and his love, even when such love and compassion are unpopular.

Jesus doesn't want fans. He wants followers. Jesus wants people who will do more than simply sit in a pew and clap and cheer. He wants people who will take up the cross daily, the cross of service and love.

So you all be Good, Be Holy, and Preach the Gospel always! Use words only when necessary!

'Thank you' to Deacon Kaas, for letting me post his reflection here.

More reflections:
Related posts:

Standing Orders and Spider-Man

I like being Catholic. It feels good to be part of an outfit that's rooted in eternity, marching through time toward a city that hasn't been built yet, and I've said that before. (April 1, 2012)

I'm a convert, a reluctant one. When I learned what the Catholic Church really is, my reaction was something like 'oh, crap, now I've got to become a Catholic.'

Not that I'm in his league, but I had about as much choice as Peter did, just after Jesus told folks that we had to gnaw His body to have eternal life. (John 5:53-68; and see footnote 19)

Forced to Decide

I've accepted the idea that God exists for as long as I can remember, and understood that Jesus is very important. By the time I was a young adult, folks slapping a 'Jesus' label on their own preferences and hatreds had encouraged a certain skepticism about religion.

Still, something that was part of the lives of almost everyone, in every culture, throughout recorded history, was probably important, so I kept studying. A keen interest in history, sparked by a professor during my first year in college, helped.

- - - and I'm getting off-topic.

I finally learned who currently held the authority Jesus gave Peter. (Matthew 16:18)

After that, I had options: of joining my Lord's outfit; ignoring what I'd learned; or deciding to walk away. The first option seemed most prudent.

Being Catholic

This post is a sort of followup to "God's Family," from two weeks ago. I'd run across a pastoral letter1 written by the archbishop of Washington, DC, where he talks about what being Catholic means. Using points the archbishop made as a starting point for posts seemed like a good idea: and still does.

Moving on.

Jesus in the World

The Church is the Body of Christ in the world. That's not my idea, the apostles said so. (Romans 12:4-5; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27)

We're not all alike. We're not supposed to be, any more than a body is made of just one organ.

Parthians, Medes, Americans - - -

We're certainly not a bunch of folks who share similar interests. We don't even have a common culture. Common beliefs, yes: but how we act on those beliefs depends on where we're born and what era we live in.

Once in a while we get an obviously miraculous assist:
"They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, "Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?

"Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,

"Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome,

"both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God."
(Acts 2:7-11)
Most of the time, it's up to us to find ways of carrying out orders that haven't changed in two millennia.

"All Power in Heaven and Earth," and Spider-Man

Jesus left this standing order, just before leaving:
"11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

"Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

"teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. '"
(Matthew 28:18-20)
Maybe it's easy to see what Jesus says about "all power in heaven and on earth," and miss the implications of "...making disciples of all nations ... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you...."

That's a huge job: and a crushing responsibility. No wonder Jesus assures us that "...I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Matthew 28:20)

Small wonder that Catholics get a reputation for feeling 'responsible.' It's like the first Spider-Man story said:
"With great power there must also come —
great responsibility!
"
(Stan Lee, in Amazing Fantasy #15 (August 1962) (the first Spider-Man story))
And that's another topic.

Related posts:

1 Cardinal Wuerl's letter:

Friday, June 28, 2013

The Three Super-Earths of Gliese 677C; and Unexpected Planets

Five newly-discovered planets stood out in this week's news. Two were in an unexpected place, three should be warm enough to have liquid water on the surface: If they're made of stuff like the Solar system's inner planets, that is, and have an atmosphere.
  1. Two Unexpected Planets
  2. Three Super-Earths: Each in the Habitable Zone
  3. Rocky, Maybe: Life, Could Be

New Planets Discovered: A Matter of Routine

These days, astronomers add newly-discovered planets to rapidly-growing lists like Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory's New Worlds Atlas: but since 'new planet discovered' is now a routine matter, few get attention in the news.

Seeking Truth

I like living in a world where robot spaceships explore the Solar system while astronomers assemble catalogs of potential destinations for interstellar exploration.

Sure, we have trouble here on Earth. That's what happens when free-willed creatures decide that we'd rather do things our way, than the right way: and that's another topic. (July 11, 2012)

I'm very concerned about several issues, but I'm also fascinated by this universe. My faith doesn't require that I keep up with developments in science, but I don't see a conflict between seeking truth and seeking God. (February 3, 2013)
"Faith and science: 'Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.'... the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God...."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)

"Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all....

"...It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. ... Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God."
(Catechism, 2293-2294)
In this case, "moral criteria" are not zipper issues. I've discussed ethics and getting a grip before. (June 3, 2011)

Planets, Life, and New Civilizations

The mission of Star Trek's Enterprise was "...to seek out new life and new civilizations...." I've run into quite a few opinions about finding "new life" elsewhere in the universe.

Some folks seem to think that the universe isn't particularly lively. One book even came close to demonstrating that life couldn't get started on Earth. Others apparently assume that space aliens are just about everywhere, although I gather that flying saucers aren't the hot topic they were in 1947.

If there are other folks like us, free-willed creatures with material bodies, that will be an opportunity to compare notes. We can start sorting out how much of 'human nature' is simply what happens with our sort of spirit-matter hybrids; and how much is specific to the particular sort of hairy biped that we are.

It's possible, though, that we're the only people in this universe. If that's the case, we'll be building those "new civilizations."

Other Worlds

Wondering about other worlds isn't particularly new. More than seven hundred years back, some serious thinkers decided that since Aristotle didn't think other worlds existed: they didn't.

It's been against the rules for Catholics to say there can't be other worlds like ours - since 1277. (January 29, 2012)

Terraforming

There's almost certainly going to be another heated debate eventually, when someone wants to terraform another planet: adjust its atmosphere and surface until it'll support our sort of life.

My guess is that Venus might be the first proposed site. It's about the same size as Earth, although that overheated atmosphere would be an issue: and it's right here in the Solar system.

Happily, that's an issue that I won't have to deal with: not unless technology develops a whole lot faster than I think it will.

Ethics will be an issue, as they are with anything we do. But I don't see anything basically wrong with continuing to act as stewards of God, working with this creation to improve the lives of ourselves and out neighbors. Existing literature talks about this stewardship in terms of "the earth," with a lower case "e," but also refers to "the goods of creation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 373, 2402)

We're discovering that creation extends far beyond this planet we call Earth: and that brings me to the first news item.

1. Two Unexpected Planets

"First transiting planets in a star cluster discovered"
Elizabeth Howell, Phys.org (June 26, 2013)

"All stars begin their lives in groups. Most stars, including our Sun, are born in small, benign groups that quickly fall apart. Others form in huge, dense swarms that survive for billions of years as stellar clusters. Within such rich and dense clusters, stars jostle for room with thousands of neighbors while strong radiation and harsh stellar winds scour interstellar space, stripping planet-forming materials from nearby stars.

"It would thus seem an unlikely place to find alien worlds. Yet 3,000 light-years from Earth, in the star cluster NGC 6811, astronomers have found two planets smaller than Neptune orbiting Sun-like stars. The discovery, published in the journal Nature, shows that planets can develop even in crowded clusters jam-packed with stars...."
Maybe those planets formed around some of the first stars formed in that cluster, before the place heated up. In any case, astronomers are re-examining their ideas about how stars and planets form.

That's nothing new. An individual scientist might have absolute certainty that a particular explanation for how things happen is right. That sort of cocksure attitude seems to be more common among 'science reporters' and folks with a book to sell.

When I started reading what scientists write, not what reporters write about them, I realized that revising theory to fit observation, or scrapping last year's explanations entirely when the facts don't fit, is routine. I suspect it's occasionally frustrating, and that's yet another topic.

A New Kind of Planet?

"...'Old clusters represent a stellar environment much different than the birthplace of the Sun and other planet-hosting field stars,' says lead author Soren Meibom of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). 'And we thought maybe planets couldn't easily form and survive in the stressful environments of dense clusters, in part because for a long time we couldn't find them.'

"The two new alien worlds appeared in data from NASA's Kepler spacecraft. Kepler hunts for planets that transit, or cross in front of, their host stars. During a transit, the star dims by an amount that depends on the size of the planet, allowing the size to be determined. Kepler-66b and Kepler-67b are both less than three times the size of Earth, or about three-fourths the size of Neptune (mini-Neptunes)...."
(Elizabeth Howell, Phys.org)
Discovering that planets were fairly common was exciting. So is learning that some planets seem to be something that's not the small rocky variety found close to our star, like Mercury through Mars; or the big gaseous sort found outside the Asteroid Belt.

2. Three Super-Earths: Each in the Habitable Zone


(ESO/M. Kornmesser, via BBC News, used w/o permission)
"An impression of what the sky might look like from the exoplanet Gliese 667Cd, looking towards the parent star and featuring, at top, the other super-Earths in the habitable zone"
"Star is crowded by super-Earths"
Jonathan Amos, BBC News (June 25, 2013)

"Scientists have identified three new planets around a star they already suspected of hosting a trio of worlds.

"It means this relatively nearby star, Gliese 667C, now has three so-called super-Earths orbiting in its 'habitable zone'.

"This is the region where temperatures ought to allow for the possibility of liquid water, although no-one can say for sure what conditions are really like on these planets....

"...Previous studies of Gliese 667C had established there were very likely three planets around it, with its habitable zone occupied by one super-Earth - an object slightly bigger than our home world, but probably still with a rocky surface.

"Now, a team of astronomers led by Guillem Anglada-Escude of the University of Göttingen, Germany, and Mikko Tuomi, of the University of Hertfordshire, UK, has re-examined the system and raised the star's complement of planets.

"The researchers used a suite of telescopes including the 3.6m telescope at the Silla Observatory in Chile. This incorporates the high-precision Harps instrument. Harps employs an indirect method of detection that infers the existence of orbiting planets from the way their gravity makes a parent star appear to twitch in its motion across the sky...."
It looks to me as if the artist who made that picture was thinking of Mars: which makes sense, since most of us have seen more pictures taken on Mars, than on any other planet besides Earth.

Maybe landscapes on one of those three planets does resemble what we've found on Mars: apart from having gravity that's a lot more than we're used to here on Earth. I'll grant that there's no way, as far as I know, of telling how strong gravity on Gliese 667C-c, f, and e are.

On the other hand astronomers are pretty sure that something that's more massive than Earth, but less massive than Neptune, is mostly rock and metal. That would make it very roughly as dense as the four innermost planets of the Solar system, and it follows that we'd feel a whole lot heavier if we stood on one of those newly-discovered worlds.

3. Rocky, Maybe: Life, Could Be


(from PHL @ UPR AreciboOrbits, via Space.com)
"Orbits and approximate relative size of the planets around Gliese 667C (orbits and planets are not to scale with each other). All three potentially habitable planets (c, f, and e) orbit within the 'conservative habitable zone.' image released June 25, 2013."
(Space.com)
"Found! 3 Super-Earth Planets That Could Support Alien Life"
Miriam Kramer, Space.com (June 25, 2013)

"The habitable zone of a nearby star is filled to the brim with planets that could support alien life, scientists announced today (June 25).

"An international team of scientists found a record-breaking three potentially habitable planets around the star Gliese 667C, a star 22 light-years from Earth that is orbited by at least six planets, and possibly as many as seven, researchers said. The three planet contenders for alien life are in the star's 'habitable zone' - the temperature region around the star where liquid water could exist. Gliese 667C is part of a three-star system, so the planets could see three suns in their daytime skies.

"The three potentially rocky planets in Gliese 667C's habitable zone are known as super-Earths - exoplanets that are less massive than Neptune but more massive than Earth. Their orbits make them possible candidates for hosting life, officials from the European Southern Observatory said in a statement. [See images of the alien planets of star Gliese 667C] ..."
A key phrase in this article is "potentially rocky." The odds are probably pretty good that they're made of stuff that's similar to Venus or Earth. On the other hand, they could be mostly water; or something else. Eventually, astronomers will find a way to separate light from one of those planets from light coming from the stars: which means they'll be able to tell what color they are. That sort of spectroscopic analysis will tell at least roughly what the outer parts of the planets are made of.

Or, if development of tech that uses Alcubierre's math goes much faster than I think it will, someone may get there to collect samples first. And that's yet again another topic.

The Gliese 667 system isn't particularly bright, but it's close, so amateur astronomers could try spotting it. This star chart shows where to look.


(from PHL @ UPR AreciboOrbits, via Space.com)
"Gliese 667 is a nearby system of three stars that is easy to locate in the Scorpius constellation. The main two central stars Gliese 667AB are barely visible to the naked eye but easy to spot by binoculars or a small telescope. They are so close together that they appear as a single star. Gliese 667C is far enough from the central stars to be seen as separate star. However, it requires a larger telescope to be seem. Image released June 25, 2013."
(Space.com)

Folks at the European Southern Observatory published this photo of Gliese 667 and surrounding sky.


(from ESO, via Space.com)
"This picture shows the sky around multiple star Gliese 667. The bright star at the centre is Gliese 667 A and B, the two main components of the system, which cannot be separated in this image."
(Space.com)

Related posts:

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Unconsidered Optimism and Diaper Changing Tables

Not all families were like this, but it was a common pattern in 1950s America:
  • Dad
    • Goes to work
    • Ignores the kids
    • Takes his wife for granted
  • Mom
    • Stays home in the suburbs
    • Being 'just a housewife'
    • Watching
      • Soaps
      • Commercials with improbably-cheerful women
        • Doing housework in high heels
    (June 2, 2011)
I do not miss the 'good old days.' My memory is too good.

I'd been trying to find that list, while writing a second comment on Brendan Walsh's Google Plus post earlier today. Like the one I'd left earlier, this one got out of hand. It's a long comment, but for me it's a short post.

What preceded this comment was a discussion of American culture and optimism, among other things.

The '60s: What Happened?

I think you will find the same sort of unconsidered optimism in the 19th century as well: with a comparatively brief hiatus during the Great Depression.

(This comment got rather long: sorry about that, I didn't have time to be brief.)

As to what ended it after WWII, the conventional explanation is 'the Vietnam war.'

I do not doubt that the protracted and seriously mismanaged Indochina involvement contributed, but am strongly inclined to see other factors at work.

After WWII, significant numbers of young American adults moved far from their homes. Post-war prosperity, GI grants, and a shift of the country's economic 'center' from the northeastern states to the west coast encouraged this movement.

American culture at the time was, as I recall, strongly inclined to take 'experts' seriously: including folks who billed themselves as child rearing experts.

For whatever reason, many American families in the 1950s had a father whose selfless devotion to his career left little time or energy for the woman and children living in his house.

Mothers, the 'good' ones, might spend more time on local committees than chatting with neighbors over how much trouble the children were.

The children had top-rate health care, a fairly good education, nice clothes, all the toys money could buy: and all too often little emotional connection with their father; or, in the case of women who were 'active in the community,' mothers.

My own parents, by the way, did manage to 'connect' with me. They weren't perfect, but I had no doubt that I was important to them, and responsible for my own actions.

Many of my generation, as they entered adulthood, had few emotional ties with their parents: and were trying to make sense of a seriously inconsistent set of values.

Some joined communes, some died of drug overdoses, many decided that 'the establishment' had to go.

I eventually became a Catholic.

It wasn't all bad news. Some of the long-overdue reforms my generation struggled for have worked out rather well.

One of these changes-for-the-better might be symbolized by the presence of diaper changing tables: in the mens' restroom!

I've written about that: "Diapers and the End of Civilization" (November 10, 2010)

Related posts:

Suicide, Civilization, and Decisions

I saw this when I checked in at Google Plus this morning:
a public post
Brendan Walsh, on Google Plus (June 23, 2013)
"Would very Much Like To Read Comments On This Article"
That post linked to this article:
I skimmed the article, made a comment on Brendan Walsh's post, and realized that I had more to say: hardly a surprise, for anyone who knows me.

I recommend reading the entire article. I've put an excerpt here, along with my reaction.

Suicide at Nortre Dame

"Suicide at Notre Dame a Warning to the West"
Marjorie Jeffrey, Crisis Magazine (June 18, 2013)

"The mainstream American right has remained almost entirely silent about the recent suicide of the French historian, Dominique Venner....

"...Venner shot himself on the altar of the Cathedral of Notre Dame on May 21st, 2013. The image of this act ought to make us pause in awe. The American left immediately dismissed him as a discontented right-wing Catholic crank, simply angry at the recent legalization of gay marriage in his country. None of them examined his last article, or his suicide note, which tell a different story: and one which ought to be heeded by the rest of the West.

"The Christian mind has long rejected the possibility of suicide as a good, ever since Augustine'’s prominent discussion of it in the first book of The City of God....

"...Just maybe, there is something we can learn from the spirit of his deed, if not from the deed itself. It certainly seems clear that Venner did not mean for men of the West to follow his example and commit mass suicide; he meant for it to shake them out of their malaise. It was a cri-du-cœur against the modern age.

"Dominique Venner was, from my understanding, neither Catholic nor formally pagan: his spiritual life was found in a kind of reverence for the heritage of Europe; that heritage includes both pagan and Christian religion, and so he admired both. His suicide in the cathedral was a final act of respect, as well as a powerful setting for the message he intended to convey. He saw the cathedrals of Europe as artistic manifestations of the genius of his people. In his suicide note, 'Reasons for a Voluntary Death,' he explained...."
There's a lot going on, just in those paragraphs. Here's my hastily-written comment in Brendan Walsh's post:

Living in a Speed Bump

"I think this may be a key excerpt:

" '...Dominique Venner was, from my understanding, neither Catholic nor formally pagan: his spiritual life was found in a kind of reverence for the heritage of Europe; that heritage includes both pagan and Christian religion....'

"If that is true, his suicide does not surprise me at all. My native culture is that of the Upper Midwest in North America, part of Western civilization.

"I see much that is worthwhile in my native culture, but recognize that the culture's dominant element has long since stopped making sense. If a person whose allegiance was solely to Western civilization became aware of its intellectual and ethical bankruptcy, that would probably be a terribly unsettling experience. Despair is a possible result.

"On my part, I am also a Christian, part of something that began before the current iteration of Western civilization began, and which I expect will be around long after the Babylonian, Roman, and British Empires are viewed as roughly contemporary.

"From my point of view, we are experiencing a sort of 'speed bump,' a crisis which must be addressed - and which will pass."
Brian H. Gill (June 23, 2013)
As I said earlier this week, I'm not part of "the American right," mainstream or otherwise. I'm not "left," either. I'm Catholic. (June 18, 2013)

Although I don't fit into my native culture's two major pigeonholes for social viewpoints, I have well-defined standards and values: those taught by the Catholic Church.

The Church says that some things are wrong, including:
  • Despair
    • And we shouldn't do it
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2091)
  • Suicide is wrong
    • But we must not lose hope for the salvation of folks who kill themselves
    (Catechism, 2280-2283)
  • Homosexual behavior
    • And we must treat folks who exhibit this behavior "with respect, compassion, and sensitivity"
    (Catechism, 2357-2359)
Finally, about that 'speed bump' we're experiencing.

The crisis we're in will most certainly pass. Change happens, whether for good or ill. The universe is in a "state of journeying," and I've been over that before. (January 18, 2012)

Decisions we make, how we act or fail to act, will make a difference in what sort of world we hand off to future generations. Doing nothing is not an option. We are expected to work for social justice, and that's another topic. (Catechism, 1928-1942)

Related posts:

Blessing the House

I 'blessed the house' this week, sprinkling holy water in each room.

There's a formal blessing of the home and household that some folks do on Epiphany. It's a wonderful ceremony: and one we don't do.

I know that we're missing out on part of what it is to be Catholic, but Catholics have been accumulating ways of living our faith for two millennia. I doubt that one person or family would have time to follow them all.

'Cafeteria Catholicism?'

This isn't what's called 'cafeteria Catholicism,' where folks decide to believe some of what the Catholic Church teaches, but not the whole package.

As a hypothetical example, someone might say 'I like the idea that Jesus is the Son of God, but don't want to believe that Jesus really died on Golgotha: and I'm Catholic.'

A person might have those two beliefs, but you can't be Catholic and pretend that Jesus didn't die. You have to believe both, among other things. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 430-445, 599-618)

What happened after Jesus stopped being dead is important too, and that's another topic. (Catechism, 638-655)

Let's see. Where was I? Beliefs; 'cafeteria Catholicism.' Right.

The Credo

What Catholics must believe is in the Nicene Creed, although the very basics are in the Apostle's Creed. (Catechism, The Credo)

John Paul II explained a little of the history involved, and that's yet another topic. ("The Holy Spirit in the Creed," John Paul II (October 31, 1990))

Being Universal

How we express our faith and live out those beliefs varies quite a bit, depending on which century you pick, and which part of the world you're looking at. We're literally catholic, καθολικός, universal: and have been around for millennia. This is okay, although some folks act as if their community's pious customs in 'the good old days,' as they remember them, is the only 'real' Catholicism.

Even before I became a Catholic, I realized that Christianity wasn't limited to middle-class America of the 1950s, and that's yet again another topic:
Bottom line, what we believe is not optional. Rules for expressing those beliefs in church take different cultures and eras into account:
"The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church's mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture:..."
(Catechism, 1202)
An example of this diversity is liturgical dance. I think it's a great idea, the Church says our culture isn't ready for it, I agree, and I've been over this before:

Blessing the House

When I 'bless the house,' I start at the top floor, sprinkling holy water and asking God to bless this house and the people in it. I work my way down until I get to the last room in the basement.

I can look at it as God's blessings filtering down from Heaven. I could see what I do as 'driving the devil out' in the general direction of Hell, but that's not what's happening.

Blessing the house is not an exorcism, since what I do isn't public, and I'm not trying to useng my Lord's authority to drive out demons:
"EXORCISM: The public and authoritative act of the Church to protect or liberate a person or object from the power of the devil (e.g., demonic possession) in the name of Christ (1673). A simple exorcism prayer in preparation for Baptism invokes God's help in overcoming the power of Satan and the spirit of evil (1237). "
(Catechism, Glossary, E)
Exorcisms are quite real, and probably not like what you've read about, or seen in the movies. Links to some of what I've written about exorcism are near the end of this post. Now, back to blessing the house.

I'm asking God to bless the house; and using holy water, a sacramental. It's not 'magic,' by the way. There's no way I could 'make' God do something, for one thing; and trying to tame occult powers is strictly against the rules. (Catechism, 2117)

Making deals with stray spirits is also a very, very, bad idea, and still another topic.

Sacramentals

Sacramentals are visible signs of sacraments: baptism, in the case of holy water. (Catechism, 1668)

Using sacramentals, properly, is a way to make everyday life holy. (Catechism, 1667)

Sacramentals are not substitutes for the sacraments, but help us get ready for cooperation with the Holy Spirit. They always involve prayer, and often go with a sign: like sprinkling holy water. (Catechism, 1668, 1670)

My guess is that holy water is a fairly common sacramental, no matter where or when Catholics are. On the other hand, the Church doesn't take a 'one size fits all' approach to sacramentals.

Local culture matters, and that's - what else? - more topics. (Catechism, 1674-1676)

Related posts:
Background:

Friday, June 21, 2013

Asteroids, NASA, Congress, and Quarks

Congress may decide that learning to catch asteroids isn't important. Maybe they're right, this year.

Whatever the lot we've got for leadership decide, I hope somebody keeps working on ways to meet and move asteroids.
  1. Four Quarks
  2. Asteroids: Getting Ready, or Not

The Jor-El Lesson

Sooner or later, ignoring flying mountains would result in a sort of Jor-El and the Kryptonain Science Council scenario.

That's because the Solar System isn't a particularly tidy place. Every few tens of millions of years a really big chunk of rock slides out of the sky and rearranges Earth's climate.

A century ago, we didn't have the technology to do anything about incoming rocks. Today we have some very good ideas for moving asteroids: but could decide to do nothing.

It looks like it took two asteroid impacts, plus massive volcanic eruptions, to kill off the dinosaurs: but even 'century' meteors can be troublesome.

Atomic Toothbrushes and Giant Mutant Frogs

Enthusiasm over electricity and magnetism had run its course in the early 20th century. Later, I remember when the word "atomic," followed by the name of some everyday bit of technology, was part of an imagined rosy future.


(From the New York City Bar Association, used w/o permission)

More recently, when optimism went out of fashion, movie makers provided us with titles like "The Swarm" and "Hell Comes to Frogtown."

I'm cautiously optimistic about the coming decades, centuries, and millennia. Not that we'll get some utopian world like "Things to Come:" but I suspect that "Mad Max" isn't a particularly accurate look at coming attractions, either.

Sure, sometimes we use knowledge to do bad things. But we can use the same knowledge to do good. Studying this astounding universe is okay, since "...the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God...." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)

1. Four Quarks


(Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP), Beijing, via livescience.com)
"The Beijing Spectrometer Experiment (BESIII) found evidence of a new particle that may contain four quarks. The same particle was independently found at the Belle experiment in Japan, with both projects publishing their results June 17, 2013...."
"New 'Charmed' Particle Represents Rare State of Matter"
Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience (June 19, 2013)

"A new type of particle may have shown up independently at two particle accelerators, physicists say. The particle, made of four quarks (the ingredients of protons and neutrons), appears to represent a state of matter previously unknown.

"Signs of the particle were sighted at the Belle experiment in Japan and the Beijing Spectrometer Experiment (BESIII) in China. Scientists can't be sure what the particle is made of, or if it's even a single particle at all - there's a chance it could be two particles, each made of a pair of quarks, bound together. But nothing like it has been seen before, and the discovery offers the hope of clarifying the strange nature of quarks.

" 'It helps us understand how matter's put together, and it helps us understand this underlying theory of quark interactions,' said Leo Piilonen, a physicist at Virginia Tech and a spokesperson for the Belle collaboration...."
I could complain about 'foreigners' discovering a new subatomic particle: or pair of particles. Another option would be ranting about Congress spending tax dollars on 'useless' research; or bewailing the supposed evils of nuclear power, Big Oil, and whatever other bogeyman is in vogue.

None of those options seem sensible.

It's possible that learning more about quark interactions and other small-scale details won't have any practical applications. Or maybe a mad scientist will build a four-quark bomb and destroy the world.

But let's remember that another line of research in theoretical physics made it possible for us to harness nuclear energy. We don't have atomic tooth brushes, and probably never will: but we're not dealing with giant mutant frogs either.

I think we have more to learn about using nuclear energy safely, but I'm not afraid of the new technology.

Our distant ancestors learned how to use fire without setting themselves ablaze. We are learning that shutting down a reactor's cooling system is a bad idea, and that reactors and tidal waves don't mix well. I've been over this before:

2. Asteroids: Getting Ready, or Not

"Congress Considers Nixing NASA Asteroid Mission"
Dan Leone, Space News, Space.com (June 18, 2013)

"A draft authorization bill from the House Science space subcommittee would cap NASA spending at about $16.87 billion for the next two years, prohibit a proposed asteroid retrieval mission, overhaul the agency's management structure and raise the spending cap for Commercial Crew activities while increasing congressional oversight of the program.

"The bill, as Republican lawmakers have been hinting during House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearings all year, also aims to steer the nation's human spaceflight program back to the moon and provide more money for robotic exploration of the solar system at the expense of NASA's Earth observation program.

"These and other changes were detailed in a copy of the bill, the NASA Authorization Act of 2013, obtained by SpaceNews on June 14. The bill holds NASA to spending levels established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, rather than assuming that Congress and the White House will eliminate sequestration's across-the-board spending cuts any time soon...."
I'll say it again. This is not a 'political' blog. I'm not 'political,' in the sense that I see one party as Satan incarnate; while assuming that 'my side' can do no wrong.

The Republican version of the NASA Authorization Act may be sensible, or not.

If America's national government cuts tax-funded tracking of asteroids, I'm fairly confident that astronomers around the world will keep mapping Earth's immediate neighborhood.

If a mountain is headed our way, there's a pretty good chance that somebody will spot it well before it hits. Maybe someone will have worked out ways to retrieve and move asteroids by then. Or maybe not.

If not, cutting a few bucks from the federal budget may not be a good idea.

Granted, impacts like the one that happened when dinosaurs died out are quite rare. But even small bits of stuff falling from the sky can be trouble. I've posted about that before, too. (February 20, 2013)


(Reuters//Yevgeni Yemeldinov, used w/o permission)
"Workers repair damage caused after a meteorite passed above the Urals city of Chelyabinsk February 15, 2013." (Reuters)

Related posts:

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Getting a Grip About Politics and Principles

Right now, in America, it's fairly easy to see most positions on social issues as being either "conservative" or "liberal."

I've been called a conservative. Some of what I think needs changing makes me look like a liberal. My views are too definite to let me seem 'moderate.'

Responsibility: Social and Personal

Growing up in the '60s colored my sense of social responsibility. I was, and am, concerned about how we manage the environment. I was even in a peace march, although I wasn't your standard-issue peacenik.

As a Catholic, I have to participate in my society and contribute to the common good: particularly where I have personal responsibility, like in my family and work. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1913-1917)

Remembering 'the Good Old Days'

I endured the end of 'the good old days,' and they weren't.

My memory is too good to let me imagine that we'd all be better off if 'she's as smart as a man' was seen as a compliment, and folks who didn't look Anglo had an unreasonably hard time finding decent jobs or housing.

I'm hardly a "conservative," certainly not the sort who seriously believes that turning the clock back is either prudent or possible.

On the other hand, I don't think that supporting the new status quo is a good idea. Replacing contempt for 'the poor,' 'minorities,' and a few other blocks of individuals with a sincere if misguided concern was a step in the right direction.

However, we've tried treating social ills by dividing people along ethnic, economic, and psychological lines. It doesn't work. My opinion.

I am not a "liberal:" not the sort who doesn't seem to realize that 1967 is history, not current events.

Local Standards, Unchanging Principles

I'm an American, living in the 21st century. I drive on the right-hand side of the road, often use forks but seldom eat with chopsticks, and wear pants instead of a kilt.

Those are accepted standards of behavior: today; here. Customs like those change, and that's okay.

Some things don't change. Natural law, ethical principles woven into creation, is constant. Exactly how we apply it changes: but not the principles. (July 11, 2012)

Laying Foundations For Generations to Come

Some folks seem unable to sort out personal preference, community standards, and unchanging principles. Insisting that a mid-20th-century style is the unchanging dress code of God can leave a regrettable impression: and that's another topic. (August 20, 2012)

The permanent rules are simple: Love God, love your neighbor; everyone is your neighbor.1

They'll still matter, when folks see Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Tories, Optimates and Populares as roughly contemporary.

The society our descendants live in won't be perfect, but it could be an improvement on today's. I'm cautiously hopeful that we'll pass on a world that's a little better than the one we received: and that's yet again another topic.



I put together a very short summary of what the Catholic Church says how we should run things. Authority, by the way, doesn't mean that 'the boss is always right.' It's exercised legitimately only when acting for the common good. (Catechism, 1903)
  • Authority
    • Is necessary in a community
      (Catechism, 1897)
    • Must act for the common good
      (Catechism, 1902)
    (Catechism, 1897-1904)
  • The common good
    • Involves effects of
      • The community on individuals
      • Individuals on the community
        (Catechism, 1905)
    • Requires
      • Respect for each person
        (Catechism, 1907)
      • The well-being of the group
        (Catechism, 1908)
      • Peace
        (Catechism, 1909)
    (Catechism, 1905-1912)
  • Government
    • Should promote the good of
      • The community
      • Individuals in the group
      (Catechism, 1910)
    • Form of government and method of selecting rulers
      • Should be freely chosen by the citizens
      • Must follow ethical standards
      (Catechism, 1901)
Related posts:

1 One or two simple rules: Love God, love your neighbor; everybody's your neighbor.
(Matthew 5:43-44; 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:25-27; 29-37; Catechism of the Catholic Church 1822, 1825-1825)

Sunday, June 16, 2013

God's Family

We're called brothers and sisters at Mass, which might seem odd, since I'm not related to many of the folks there. Granted, not long ago almost everyone here in Sauk Centre Minnesota belonged to one of two families, and that's another topic.

"That's Cool"

The reason we're 'brothers and sisters' is that we're children of God: by adoption. I ran into that idea in something the archbishop of Washington DC wrote:
"...'Why do you call us brothers and sisters?' a youngster asked ... [Cardinal Wuerl] after Mass. 'You're not my brother.' 'Ah, but I am spiritually. Because we are all members of God's family,' ... [the Cardinal] responded. After ... [the boy] received a nod of affirmation from his mother and father who stood behind him, he said, 'Wow, I didn't know that.' Then he added, 'That's cool,' offering his youthful declaration of approval..."
("The Church, Our Spiritual Home,"1 Cardinal Wuerl)
Our being children of God isn't the archbishop's own idea. It's what the Catholic Church says. (1 John 3:1-2; Galations 4:4-7; and Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1, 1243, for starters)

Body Parts

We're also the Body of Christ. Again, that's not a new idea. (Colossians 1:18, 24; Catechism, 753)

Like parts of a body, we're not all alike. We've got different jobs to do: not that I'm on the parish payroll. My vocation is being a married member of the laity. (December 11, 2011)

We're issued different abilities, too. Some of them are the high-profile gifts like speaking in tongues, some are anything but glamorous. Administration makes the list, right after healing and assistance. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

I've sometimes wondered if I'm more like a spleen, funny bone, or appendix: and that's yet another topic.

The Right Church, Suit, Country Club - - -

Maybe you've heard folks say that they're spiritual, but not religious.

Something between indifference and dislike of 'organized religion' has been part of American culture for several decades. I took the idea seriously myself, in the '60s.

That was just after the 'good old days,' when going to the right church was as important to an ambitious young company man as wearing the right suit and belonging to the right country club. I do not miss the 'good old days.'

In a way, I'm still not 'spiritual' or 'religious.' I don't walk around with a vaguely blank smile, or think that God has to reward me if I go through some 'religious' routines. And that's yet again another topic: topics.

Vaguely-related posts:

1 Cardinal Wuerl's letter:

Friday, June 14, 2013

A Remote Control Cockroach, Organ Transplants, and Renting People

'The future' hasn't brought us a short work week and leisurely lifestyle, but we do have cyborg cockroaches.
  1. Robot Cockroaches: Really
  2. New Lungs: Waiting for Good News
  3. Renting Women: Problems With Surrogate Pregnancy

Living in 'The Future:' and Loving It

"...The future wasn't tomorrow, next week, next year, or next century. It was a place with a form, a structure, a style. ... It was for all intents and purposes a different land where people dressed differently, talked differently, ate differently, and even thought differently. It was where scientists were wizards, where machines were magically effective and efficient, where tyrants were at least romantically evil rather than banal...."
(Tales of Future Past, David S. Zondy)
Today certainly isn't a "technocratic, atomic-powered, computer-controlled, antiseptic, space-travelling Jerusalem" without "the curse of Eden and original sin:" but on the whole I like living here.

I don't expect science and technology to solve all our problems, but I think they're wonderful tools: which we can use to do good, or not. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2293-2294)

Living in 'the future,' we have all the power and responsibility that we had in my youth: plus high speed internet; prosthetics with neural interfaces; and robot spaceships. Original sin still makes our job harder, and I've been over that before. (March 17, 2013; July 11, 2012)

1. Robot Cockroaches: Really


"TEDGlobal welcomes robot cockroaches"
Jane Wakefield, TEDGlobal, via BBC News (June 10, 2013)

"A project aimed at creating cyborg cockroaches is being launched at the TEDGlobal conference in Edinburgh.

"The insects, intended as a neuroscience learning tool, are controlled via a mobile phone....

"...The cyborg insect is created by attaching a backpack that communicates directly with neurons in the cockroach's antennae.

"The neurons convey information back to the insect's brain using electricity.

"The cockroach needs to undergo what ... [neuroscientist Greg] ... Gage calls 'short surgery under anaesthetic' in order to have wires placed inside the antennae.

"Then the backpack can be placed on the insect and its movements controlled via a mobile phone or other device.

"The backpack communicates directly with neurons in the cockroach's antennae, allowing users to set the direction in which the insect moves...."
There might be a market for remote-control cockroaches, maybe as a game called Roach Race?

More to the point, this cockroach cyborg demonstrates how cochlear implants work and other gadgets with neural interfaces. Greg Gage says that the cyber-roach is useful for research, too.

Roach Rights

"...He said that the team had thought a lot about the ethics of using insects in this way.

" 'We are pretty certain that this doesn't impose pain on the insect and they still have free will because they adapt very quickly and ignore the stimulation,' he said.

"However the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has now told the BBC it has concerns...."
(Jane Wakefield, TEDGlobal, via BBC News)
I'm concerned about how cockroaches get treated. As a Catholic, I have to. Cockroaches, and all animals, are under our dominion: but they're God's property. (Catechism, 2415-2418)

Our dominion over this world comes with responsibilities. Using animals is part of our job as stewards. We're even allowed to enjoy leisure time with critters: provided that we don't misuse creatures placed in our care.

'Loving animals' is fine, as long as it doesn't replace love for people:
"God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

"It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons."
(Catechism, 2417-2418)

Cockroaches and Free Will

I take what Greg Gage said about cockroaches and free will with a grain of salt. ("...they still have free will because they adapt very quickly and ignore the stimulation.")

Humans have free will. We can decide to act, or not to act. This is great, but again comes with responsibilities. (Catechism, 1730-1738)

I don't think that cockroaches are people. They don't have our sort of "free will." On the other hand, they apparently have enough neurons to identify irrelevant sensory input and learn to ignore it.

2. New Lungs: Waiting for Good News

"Sarah Murnaghan gets lung transplant"
BBC News (June 12, 2013)

"A severely ill 10-year-old girl to whom a US judge granted a prime spot on the adult transplant list despite her youth has received a new set of lungs.

"Sarah Murnaghan's family said they were 'thrilled' the six-hour surgery to implant adult lungs went smoothly and that she had done 'extremely well'.

"The family had challenged a US policy relegating under-12s to the bottom of the adult organ donation list....

"...Children under 12 have priority for paediatric lung donations, but far fewer paediatric lungs are donated than adult lungs...."
I'm very happy for Sarah Murnaghan and her family. It's good that she has a chance of surviving childhood.

I also think her parents did the right thing, trying to change the rules so that their daughter could have a chance for survival.

That said, I recognize that this isn't a simple situation. Back to the BBC article.
"...About 30 children under the age of 11 are on the waiting list for a lung transplant, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, out of a total of 1,650 potential lung recipients.

"Last week, US District Judge Michael Baylson, who is independent of the Obama administration, ruled Sarah and another child at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, 11-year-old Javier Acosta, eligible for a better spot on the adult list...."
(BBC News)

Health and Hard Decisions

Putting organ transplants in perspective, here's about how many folks were waiting for organs in the United States this week:
  • Kidney: 96,555
  • Pancreas: 1,180
  • Kidney/Pancreas: 2,089
  • Liver: 15,736
  • Intestine: 264
  • Heart: 3,506
  • Lung: 1,650
  • Heart/Lung: 46
    (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, via BBC News)
If I could, I'd just wave my hand and have all those folks be cured: right now. I can't. That's not the way things work. Right now, we are have to make hard decisions.
"...Some analysts warned the intervention of politicians and judges in the cases would set a dangerous precedent.

"Dr Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center, said children fared worse than adults after lung transplants, one of the reasons for the existing policy.

" 'In general, the road to a transplant is still to let the system decide who will do best with scarce, lifesaving organs,' Dr Caplan said.

" 'And it's important that people understand that money, visibility, being photogenic... are factors that have to be kept to a minimum if we're going to get the best use out of the scarce supply of donated cadaver organs.'..."
(BBC News)
Again, I think Sarah Murnaghan's parents did the right thing, trying to get a new set of lungs for their daughter. That's what parents are supposed to do: care for their children.

I even think changing the rules for matching organ donors and recipients may have been a good idea. Offhand, I can't see ethical problems with people under 12 getting considered as recipients for organs from folks who are over 12.

However, I agree that "money, visibility, being photogenic" do not seem like good reasons for deciding who gets an organ transplant and who doesn't. Balancing risk to the donor with potential benefit to the person getting the transplant is important is important, and I'll get back to that. (Catechism, 2296)

Remembering 'the Good Old Days'

"Dying girl intubated as she awaits lung transplant"
FoxNews.com (June 10, 2013)

"Sarah Murnaghan, the dying 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl awaiting a lung transplant, was intubated on Saturday after she experienced additional trouble breathing.

"A federal court judge granted a temporary order on June 5 that will allow Sarah, who has cystic fibrosis and desperately needs new lungs, to join an adult organ transplant list...."
I remember the 'good old days' when organ transplants were literally science fiction. I don't mind living in 'the future:' at all. Today's world isn't perfect, but I remember the 'good old days.'

As I've said before, donating organs on or after death is a good idea, and organ transplants are fine: as long as we don't kill one person to help another. As usual, ethics apply. (Catechism, 2296)

Ventilators, Rules, and Waiting Lists

"...Sarah required intubation on Saturday due to difficulty breathing, but since then, her condition has improved, according to a statement from her mother, Janet Murnaghan.

" 'Sarah's heart has been the biggest win since intubation. Her pulmonary hypertension, caused by lung disease, has greatly improved with the ventilator,' Janet stated. 'All her other organs are fairing well. She is a great, strong candidate for transplant still. Come on lungs!'

"Judge Michael Baylson made his ruling after hearing oral arguments on a federal lawsuit filed by Sarah's parents, challenging the 'Under 12 Rule' that was keeping the 10-year-old off the adult transplant list...."
I'm happy for Sarah and her family: even though her being on the 'adult' waiting list may reduce the odds of someone else getting a replacement lung. Folks may eventually be able to get made-to-order replacement organs, and that's another topic. (May 3, 2013, March 8, 2013)

3. Renting Women: Problems With Surrogate Pregnancy

"Surrogate pregnancy bill in DC draws criticism"
Mary Reza, CNA/EWTN News (June 8, 2013)

"A lack of information about the dangers of surrogate pregnancy could soon allow the practice to become legal in Washington, D.C., warned the founder of one bioethics organization.

" 'These issues aren't on anyone's radar,' said Jennifer Lahl, president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture. 'By and large people have accepted third party reproduction. It's not seen as controversial…because people are woefully misinformed.'

"Lahl told CNA that the average person sees nothing wrong with surrogacy, which is the practice of a woman carrying and delivering a baby for someone else. This could explain the lack of opposition to a new bill in that nation's capital, she said.

"Legislation introduced June 3 by D.C. Councilman David Catania would legalize surrogacy in the district. If passed, it would wipe away current local legislation prohibiting surrogacy contracts, which carry penalties of up to $10,000 in fines or a year in jail...."
Adoption can be a very good idea. (Catechism, 2379)

On the other hand, nobody has a "right" to own a child. For starters, children are people, not property. (Catechism, 2378)

I'm not terribly surprised that hiring women to be a sort of second-class temporary wife isn't raising many eyebrows. Americans have other economic, social, and political issues that are also important: and I strongly suspect that quite a few of us haven't thought through what paying a woman for the use of her body implies.

Mother and Child

"...Lahl, who worked as a pediatric nurse for 20 years, said most people are unaware of the negative repercussions of surrogacy. She noted that concerns with legalized surrogacy include a lack of research in the field and a failure to consider the impact on the child and the woman whose womb is being 'rented.'

"One of the biggest concerns, she warned, is that the relationship between a mother and a child in her womb is ignored.

" 'So much is going on in that womb,' Lahl explained. 'The surrogate mom and child will be linked genetically, and there's so much we're learning about genetic diseases and how much the womb plays into that child's health.'..."
(Mary Reza, CNA/EWTN News)
There's more going on in our first nine months of life than physical growth. We're people, at any age: and we're never away from our mother until we're born.

Rent-a-Body: Money Talks

"...'Newborns know one thing - they know who their mother is,' she said. 'I've known of mothers who sing to their children in the womb or read them books - what happens when you tell a mother to intentionally not bond with a child in their womb?'..."

"...However, as part of a new documentary for the Center for Bioethics and Culture, Lahl has interviewed numerous women who were surrogate mothers. By and large, she said, surrogate women 'are women who have financial need - wealthy women are going to be buying the surrogacy contract.'

"...Raising concerns over the practice of paying women in order to 'rent' their bodies and produce children, Lahl argued that women and children end up being exploited...."
(Mary Reza, CNA/EWTN News)
Being wealthy, or poor, isn't a problem. Using wealth to buy or rent people: That's a problem.(Catechism, 1936-1938, 2414)

Treating People as Property

"...Surrogacy comes in two forms: traditional surrogacy, when the surrogate mother's own egg is fertilized and implanted in her womb, and gestational surrogacy, when the commissioning woman's egg is fertilized and then implanted into the surrogate mother's womb.

"The bill proposed in D.C. allows for both kinds of surrogacy, though there is a legal tendency to favor gestational surrogacy, Lahl said.

" 'That is the way most surrogacy is moving,' she [Lahl] cautioned. 'They don't want the birth mother to claim any rights to the child, they want her to just be the "oven." They keep deconstructing who "owns" that child.'

"Lahl said this language of surrogacy laws should be enough to cause people to pause.

" 'This is a contract, we're discussing who "owns it" - even though we're dealing with a child,' she said.

" 'They're only thinking about goods and services,' she warned. 'Nobody's thinking about the child.' "
(Mary Reza, CNA/EWTN News)
I could quibble about Reza's saying that "nobody's thinking about the child," since she's obviously doing so: but that would be, well, quibbling.

An important point here is that America is very quietly getting back to the 'good old days,' when some sorts of people were property. Like I've said before, I don't miss the 'good old days.'

Surrogate pregnancy isn't a particularly new idea, by the way. Abraham and Sarah used Hagar that way. (Genesis 16:1-12; 21:9-21)

We're still dealing with the domestic disturbance that the Abraham/Sarah/Hagar/Ishmael/Isaac situation started, and that's yet another topic:

Families and Adoption

My wife and I had no trouble conceiving children. Keeping them alive was another matter: we lost two of our six in the first nine months, and nearly lost my wife when the second one died.

Not everyone has as happy a situation as we do. Some couples who want to have children can't conceive. That's a very difficult situation, but is not a case of God punishing someone. (footnote 3, Luke 1)

Research aimed at reducing human sterility is a good idea. So is adoption. But, as with anything else we do, ethics apply. (Catechism, 2373-2379)

Related posts:

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

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


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

Popular Posts

Label Cloud

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

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

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

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

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

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

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