Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Bible Stories and Anonymous Christians

Fourth Sunday of Easter, 2015:

Fourth Sunday of Easter, 2015

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
April 26, 2015

Most of us tune out stories we've heard repeatedly. If it's from an old friend you may hear them say, once again, "did I ever tell you about the time", and on goes the story. Inwardly we may even groan a little bit knowing how long this story will last. It's a little different watching TV because if we don't like the story we can change the channel. We may even ask one of our children to find a different story than the one you've been reading to them, it seems like 50 times.

Maybe even some of the Bible stories can impact us in this way: they're just too familiar to engage our full attention. As a lectionary-based church with fixed readings every Sunday of the year, we don't have the option of changing channel. What helps is to hear in an old story, even a Bible story, the little hidden details. Sometimes we can pose questions to ourselves as to the hidden meanings of some of the Scripture passages. For example: the good Shepherd story of today, --- let's forget the hired man, the sheep, and the Wolf. We know the Wolf will attack, the hired help will bolt, and the vulnerable sheep are in danger. These characters played to a type that is predictable, as in the movie, the bad guy moves in for the kill, the working stiff saves himself, and the victim is exposed.

The good Shepherd, meanwhile, does the courageous thing: he risks his life for the sheep that belong to him. In the movie version, we would expect this too: the hero would put himself or herself in harms way because someone is in need. We expect the hero to win, or it wouldn't be a satisfying movie. Yet sometimes the hero dies in rescuing the vulnerable one. While this makes the ending bittersweet, self-sacrifice is a recognizable part of the code of good storytelling.

The most curious detail in the story isn't about the wolf, the hired man, the flock, or even the Shepherd's sacrifice. It's about those other sheep that don't belong to this fold. The sacrifice of Jesus isn't just for the flock in plain sight, but for these mysterious others too. Scholars have identified the mysterious sheep as future believers---like us. Before we were born, Jesus accepted death for our sake. These others, however, might also be the non-Jewish Christians who came to faith after the time of Jesus. The mission of Jesus was mostly limited to his fellow Jews in his lifetime, the church evolved into a church of Gentiles in ages to come.

It is also possible the other sheep referred to, were believers who, even during the time when this gospel was written were sharing the faith of the apostles, it could also include the divergent ways of the Johannine community. Important too, the other sheep could include other groups, those Carl Rahner called anonymous Christians who live Christ-like lives outside the boundaries of formal church. The good shepherd may, well have, plenty of flocks we haven't suspected yet.

We must remember that Jesus came to find and save the lost!

So you all be good, be holy, preached the gospel always using words and holy actions!
'Thank you' to Deacon Kaas, for letting me post his reflection here.
More reflections:
Related posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

New on the Blogroll: Two Catholic Men and a Blog

There's a new website on the Blogroll/Catholic Links page (Blogroll > Blogs):
Their most recent post caught my attention:
This isn't your usual blog post about science and religion. I've seen discussions of their premise before: that without an underlying belief that the universe makes sense, science would be impossible.

But I don't often see acknowledgement that the Judeo-Christian worldview, with its assumption that the universe is designed along rational lines, helped jump-start European science.
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Still Shining in the Darkness: or, Be Not Afraid of Geekness

Jesus told John, Peter, and the others, to "make disciples of all nations;" and to teach us "...to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:18-20)

Jesus and a Vital Message

I'm a Catholic layman, so my duties include dealing with "social, political, and economic realities" I run into: or that run into me. (Catechism, 898-900)

Like any other Christian, a very important part of my job is "to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth." (Catechism, 900) That's a tall order.

The "divine message of salvation" brings me back to Jesus:
" 'At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son from the Father . . . who suffered and died for us and who now, after rising, is living with us forever.'13...."
(Catechism, 426)
"Catechesis?" That's a particular sort of teaching:
"CATECHESIS: An education of children, young people, and adults in the faith of the Church through the teaching of Christian doctrine in an organic and systematic way to make them disciples of Jesus Christ. Those who perform the ministry of catechists in the Church are called 'catechists'
(5, 426-427)."
(Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Don't Try, But Don't Stop Trying

So, what can I do to "make disciples?"

This paradoxically intriguing post, in another blog, outlines one approach. (A tip of the hat to Fr. Christian Mathis, on Google+, for the heads-up on his post.)
The message in Father Mathis' post seems to be that a hard-sell approach, he calls it "zeal," can drive folks away from faith. He outlines how to share faith through personal relationships. I think it's a good idea.

Working with What I've Got

I'm one of those people who say things like "paradoxically intriguing," and read dictionaries for fun. If I had more finely-tuned social skills, I might be a geek. As it is, I've been told I'm a nerd, and I agree:
Which reminds me of that famous line from "Twelfth Night:"
"Be not afraid of geekness: some men are born geeks, some achieve geekness and some have geekness thrust upon them."
(with apologies to William Shakespeare)
A cartoon explaining distinctions between geeks and nerds is at the end of this post.

I've decided to settle for being me: a man who loves language and digging through piles of information; and who is pretty good at putting words together. Writing these posts seems like a reasonable way to use my skills and experience.

Shining in the Darkness

John, who stayed with my Lord at the cross, explained who Jesus is:
"1 2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"He was in the beginning with God.

"3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be

"through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;

"4 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. "
(John 1:1-5)
Two millennia later, the darkness still "has not overcome it."

And that's another topic.

Related posts:
More:
  • "Catechesi Tradendae"
    On Catechesis in Our Time
    John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation (October 16, 1979)
Geeks and nerds, from 909sickle.com/s:

(from 909sickle.com/s, used w/o permission)
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Murder at a Sikh Temple: Why I Care

News about the murder of six people at a Sikh temple in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has been almost as hard to miss this week as coverage of the Olympics. Then the man who decided to kill those folks killed himself, bringing the body count to seven.

Judgmental as this may seem, I think killing those seven people was wrong.

There are a lot of folks in Wisconsin, and India, hurting. This is just a suggestion, but prayer couldn't hurt.

Folks Who Don't Look Like Me: Why I Care

As the name of this blog suggests, I'm a practicing Catholic.

That means I'm a Christian, and take some basic principles seriously, particularly 'love God, love your neighbor;' and 'everybody's my neighbor.' (Matthew 5:43-44; Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:25-27; Luke 10:29-37; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1822, 1825)

I grew up in a sensible mainstream Protestant household, and learned about Matthew 5:43 as a child. I spent my teens in the '60s, when quite a few folks my age took ideas like these seriously:
"...Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions...."
("Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In" from Hair)
We changed society. Some of the changes didn't go the way I had hoped, others had implications I didn't see at the time. On the other hand, I remember the 'good old days' that came before: and never want to go back.

My point is that loving God and my neighbor, and seeing everyone as my neighbor, wasn't a belief I had to change when I became a Catholic.

Upset About Mass Murder? Yes

Maybe you've run into a Christian whose faith seems dedicating to hating particular groups of people; or who said 'love,' and behaved - otherwise. I'm not surprised.

But like I said, that's not what the Catholic Church teaches.

When seven people are killed, I'm not happy at the loss. At all. Even though I didn't know them personally. It 'upsets' me: although that's a rather mild term for my reaction.

So: I'm upset when a bunch of 'foreigners' get killed. Does that mean I hate people who don't realize that Christians disapprove of murder? Or shouldn't? No - and I'll get back to that idea. Ideas.

"I Don't Hear..."

I routinely check a server log analysis to see which posts and pages get read. Don't worry. There's no personal information in the data.

I suspect there is an all-too-familiar assumption behind one entry I saw:
"I found this search term in today's logs:
" 'i don\'t hear christians upset about the sikh\'s being murdered'

"Whoever used that found this post:

" 'Wisconsin: Dead Sikhs; Disrupted Lives' ( http://catholiccitizenamerica.blogspot.com/2012/08/wisconsindead-sikhs-disrupted-lives.html )

"Don't let the lack of histrionics fool you: I'm plenty upset about those deaths."
(Brian H. Gill, Google+ (August 6, 2012))
Again: I collect no personal data. All I know about that 'hit' on this blog is that someone typed "i don\'t hear christians upset about the sikh\'s being murdered" into a search engine - and found my post about those murders.

Whoever wrote that was probably quite sincere and accurate. My guess is that quite a few Americans haven't heard or read about Christians who care about these murders.

Murder, Life, and Rules

The Catholic Church has a reputation for 'forcing' folks to follow a lot of rules. There's a little truth to it.

I think we'd have a lot fewer pages written about why loving your neighbor is a good idea, if folks hadn't been trying to weasel out of the 'simple' version for two millennia. (September 26, 2011)

I said that murder is wrong. That's my opinion: but it's also what the Catholic Church says. (Catechism, 2258, 2268-2269)

Suicide is a very personal subject for me. (January 28, 2009) It's also wrong. (Catechism, 2280-2283) But despair is not an option. (Catechism, 2283)

About 1,100,000,000 or so Catholics are living today. Some of us aren't particularly good role models for our faith: including me. I haven't murdered anyone, but I'm pretty sure that some of that throng have.

But what the Church says about murder being wrong doesn't change because someone kills an innocent person. What that act does is deprive someone of life, and put the murderer in an awkward position.

That doesn't mean that I hope that the man who killed those folks burns in Hell. I don't need that kind of trouble. And that's yet another topic. (Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37-38, 41-42; Romans 2:1-11; and see footnote 10 in Luke:6)

Related posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

New on the Blogroll: Never Give Up

Earlier today, I linked to a post in John Janaro's blog:
  • Never Give Up
    • "An ordinary man engages the circumstances of daily life, seeking to draw closer to the Mystery who gives meaning to everything."
Professor Janaro's blog is in the blogroll now, under - what else? - Blogs.

"Professor?!"

Here's what I found in Never Give Up's sidebar:
"John Janaro is Associate Professor Emeritus of Theology at Christendom College. He is a Catholic theologian, and a writer, researcher, and lecturer on issues in religion and culture. His most recent book is NEVER GIVE UP: MY LIFE AND GOD'S MERCY. He is married to Eileen Janaro and has five children."
(About Me, Never Give Up)
John Janaro's post discusses an assumption I've run into fairly often:
The short answer to that question is 'no.'

Sure, we've got rules: but they're not 'oppressive,' and - we get help.
"... We are not just burdened with a bunch of rules, and then left alone. People are afraid to embrace the demands of Christian morality because they think they have to do it themselves. But this is not what Christianity proposes. We are not 'by ourselves' and we are not left in the hands of our own power.

"People need to hear and see this witness...."
(Never Give Up (July 23, 2012))
I'm looking forward to reading more in Never Give Up.

Vaguely-related posts in A Catholic Citizen in America:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, May 7, 2012

Catholics aren't Calvinists

I still hope to get a post about Caritas in Veritate out today. Or maybe tomorrow. Sections 31 and 32, anyway.

Before I get to that, I think a little clarification might be in order:

Too 'Sensible' to Believe in God

An online discussion thread I was in recently included contributions from fellows who apparently are too sensible to believe in God.

In a way, I see their point.

In a way.

I know about Matthew 7:1-5, don't know where anybody else stands with respect to God, and I've been over judgment and common sense before. Recently. (May 4, 2012)

That said, the way some Christians act: "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Catholics are Christians. But that doesn't mean that we're Calvinists or Fundamentalists. Which, for some folks I've run into, means we're not Christians. I stopped trying to reason with zealots a long time ago, and that's another topic.

Be Like Me, or Be Damned?

By the time Calvinism got to 20th century America, its louder supporters had developed a fairly consistent attitude about Jesus, themselves, and everybody else.

This is a gross oversimplification, but 'I'm going to Heaven, everybody who isn't like me is damned' isn't all that far from the message that came across. And still comes across, in the second decade of the 21st century.

I realize that the Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas, for example, isn't necessarily a typical Calvinist church. Still, it's folks like these who affect the perceptions of just about everybody else:


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

What Everybody Knows, That Just Ain't So

Back to that online discussion thread, and the 'sensible' folks. Their questions, accusations, and assumptions, were familiar:
  • Why do
    • Catholics believe everybody who isn't Catholic goes to Hell?
    • Christians hate non-Christians?
  • How can Catholics
    • Believe the Bible?
      • Which
        • Doesn't describe how the universe works
          • As understood by scientists in 2012
        • Was written in a hurry
          • Actually, that's a new one for me
  • The world is just fine the way it is
    • Problems are the fault of Christians
  • God doesn't exist because
    • I don't understand God
    • Christians don't understand God
    • Free will is icky
  • Christians believe in "magic from the sky"
Except for 'the Bible was written in a hurry,' these are assumptions I've run into fairly often. There's some truth to the notion that my Lord is the only way to salvation. But that does not mean that folks who don't agree with me are going to Hell. God is just, God is merciful: and I'm counting on God's mercy, myself.

Then there's the assumption that religious people are superstitious and believe in magic.

Hate, Magic, and Getting a Grip

Here's a very quick, and extremely incomplete, set of links to what the Catholic Church has to say about salvation and magic. And why hating people is a really bad idea. Also my take. But remember: I've got the teaching authority of "some guy with a blog." I don't speak for the Church.

"Success" and Long-Range Planning

I might attract attention, and have 'success' in one sense of the word, if I decided to start a blog called "Religious People are Hateful, Ignorant, and Smell Bad;" or maybe "The Sinful Shame of Satanic Science."

Either way, I think I'd be appealing to some very enthusiastic folks.

A few things have kept me from trying that sort of thing. The biggest obstacle to that sort of success, for me, is my habit of taking long term goals into account.

Here's a sort of 'best case' sequence of events, as I see it, for my career with either of those hypothetical blogs:
  • Skyrocketing viewership
  • Promoting my latest book on
    • Dr. Phil
    • Jerry Springer
    • Jay Leno
      • He's back
  • Building a house with all the latest gadgets
  • Dying
  • Geting some serious face time with my Lord
That looks quite attractive, until I get to the last two points. Particularly the face time with my Lord.

That kind of trouble I don't need, and I've discussed particular judgment, the Last Judgment, and why long-term planning is important, before:

Back to Work

Oh, great. Another 'unscheduled' post.

I've started reviewing my schedule. I simply don't have enough hours in the day to do what I think I should. And that's, good grief, yet another topic. Time to stop.

Right after two of my favorite quotes:
"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so."
(attr. humorists Mark Twain,11 Artemus Ward, Kin Hubbard, and Will Rogers; inventor Charles Kettering; pianist Eubie Blake; baseball player Yogi Berra, Al Gore (once))
"There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing."
(Bishop Fulton Sheen,12 Foreword to Radio Replies Vol. 1, (1938) page ix, via Wikiquote)
Related (?) posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Christmas: Mything the Point

Christianity is an historical faith: which doesn't mean that it's old. It is, by American standards, but that's not the point.

My faith is rooted in events which actually took place, at particular points in time and space. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 269, 304, 450, 2568, 2584)

A few of these events are - unique: like the virginal conception of Jesus. It's been fashionable to dismiss the Incarnation as 'myth,' or a convenient lie told by the apostles. (Catechism, 498)

A few decades back, 'intelligent' folks sometimes said that the early disciples of Jesus were motivated by greed: which is why they lied about the Incarnation and Resurrection. That almost made sense, since around that time some televangelists were making out like gangbusters: financially and otherwise.

Oddly, asking why 1st-century Christians would have made claims that practically guaranteed mockery and - in many cases - an unpleasant death: wasn't considered 'intelligent.'

Belief, Decisions, and George Washington

It's still a matter of belief, of course. I could decide that John the Baptist didn't live two thousand years ago, and that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem and crucified near Jerusalem. I could also decide that Poughkeepsie doesn't exist, and that George Washington is a myth invented by Abraham Lincoln to justify the War Between the States.

But I believe that what happened, happened; and that Poughkeepsie really exists.

Oddly, saying that Jesus wasn't real, or that he wasn't anything more than a political reformer, would probably let me be recognized as 'intelligent' these days. But saying that Lincoln invented Washington so he could start a war - - - come to think of it, if I stressed the 'white racist warmonger' angle, I might not be called crazy.

These are interesting times.

Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Assumptions, Bible Verses, and a Little Research

A week or so ago, in a documentary about a particularly lethal cult, I ran into a familiar assertion. While the video showed a page from the Bible, the narrator intoned "Christians believe that..." and went on to describe what some of the 'end times are nigh' churches say they beleve about End Times, Rapture, and television documentaries.

Over the last half-century, I've noted that quite a few folks say - and quite likely believe - that fundamentalist and/or evangelical churches are Christian: and are typical of all Christians.

The first part, I agree with. Someone who worships Jesus the Christ, Second Person in the Trinity, can reasonably be called a Christian.

The second part, assuming that the various outfits that reporters call fundamentalists and/or evangelicals - or churches like the "God Hates Fags" one that's been disrupting funerals - are normal, typical Christians? That I can't believe.

'Pastor Bob Bombast' and the Pope: There's a Difference

It was hard to shake the impression that radio preachers who were endenic to the area where I grew up thought they were the only 'real' Christians around. Even if they did, and were quite sincere about it - that sincerity wouldn't make them right.

I've read what a fair number of outfits have written about themselves - and what others have written about them. To the best of my knowledge, the following is accurate:
Back to what "Christians believe" about the book of Revelation, End Times, Rapture, all that.

I realize that production schedules may not leave a lot of time for fact-checking.

On the other hand, when the documentary is about what some cult did - based on what some fellow thought a verse out of Revelation meant, back in the 20th century: I think someone might have bothered to do maybe 30 minutes of research.

My guess is that's about how long it would take an assistant toGoogle "end times," "final judgment," and a few other terms - and see what the Catholic Church, and some other churches, say they believe. Instead of going with what 'everybody knows.'

Related posts:
Posted by 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Being Catholic - and Christian - and American

I'm a practicing Catholic. I converted to Catholicism as an adult, but I've been a Christian as far back as I can remember: at least in the sense that I believe "Jesus is the Christ." (Princeton's WordNet) And, more to the point, since James 2:19 hints - at least - that just 'believing' isn't enough: I've followed my Lord as best I can.

I didn't stop being a Christian when I became a Catholic: although I'm pretty sure that some of the "death cookie" folks would think so.

I'm also an American citizen. That hasn't changed, either.

America: Love It and Change It

I like living in America. I'd rather live here, than anywhere else in the world.

I hope that most folks feel that way about the country they live in.

I also hope that most folks aren't entirely satisfied with the status quo - and want to improve their homes. Which, although I like living here, is my attitude toward being an American.

I like this country: but I know that it isn't perfect.

I've even thought, seriously, about pulling up stakes and moving out. Very seriously, a few times, starting in the late '60s and early '70s. After taking a hard look at the alternatives: I decided to stay. Here, I understand the language, the culture, and have opportunities that most places don't offer.

It made sense to stay, and try to improve the situation. Not that one person in a nation of around 300,000,000 can do a whole lot. I like the analogy to water. One drop of water can't do much. Put a lot of drops, moving in the same direction: and you've got a river, or a waterfall. Or a flood.

And that's another topic. Topics.

"American?"

In the context of this post, an American is "a native or inhabitant of the United States." (Princeton's WordNet) I don't, for a variety of reasons, like the word "native." More topics.

Depending on who you listen to, "American" can mean quite a few things, including:
  • Someone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower
    • Or met those refugees when they landed
  • A member of the
    • Republican party
    • Democratic party
    • 'Right' country club
I'll settle for the 'dictionary' definition.

"Christian?"

Say "Christian," and folks can assume that you mean - quite a few different things. Over the decades, I've run into many assumptions, informed and otherwise. Including the idea that a "Christian" is:
Since I'm a practicing Catholic, living in America, using that "what-is-a-Christian" list makes me a person who follows Jesus and an 'American whatever.' Sound confusing? I'm not surprised.

"Catholic?"

I've explained why I became a Catholic before. What being Catholic means is discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You'll learn more at the Holy See's website: www.vatican.va.

Like "American," and "Christian," "Catholic" can mean quite a few things. Some assumptions about Catholicism are accurate, some are - not so much. In this country, I don't think it helps that some folks get us mixed up with the crazier Protestant outfits. And that's yet again another topic.

Me? I'm a Catholic because this is the closest I can get to my Lord, and the Last Supper. And Golgotha. In a way. (Matthew 16:18; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1326, 1330, 1545) (and, in this blog, June 15, 2011, August 18, 2010)

Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by 4 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Evolution, Space Aliens, and Two Millennia of Dealing With People

Up to a bit less than a thousand years ago, quite a few European Christians probably assumed that:
  • Earth was maybe a few thousand miles across
  • The entire universe might be several times as big as Earth1
    • Was thousands of years old
Some folks still assume that the universe is a relatively cozy little affair. It's a belief that won't interfere with everyday life.2

Change Happens

Bishop Ussher, not a Catholic bishop, by the way, worked out how old the whole of Creation was - using some of the best Protestant Bibles of the 17th century as his research equipment. He came up with 4004 BC as the year that God made the entire universe.

In the 19th century, some serious thinkers claimed that things change, therefore God doesn't exist. (March 20, 2009) They said that their idea was very 'scientific.' A remarkable number of folks took them seriously.

Over-simplified? Yes, but I think I've got the gist of the Darwin/Huxley thing. As it percolated through society, anyway. The last I checked, folks are still arguing both sides of that debate. Quite seriously. And loudly.

Me? I figure that
  • Change happens
  • God's more patient than I am
  • I'm not going to tell God what He can and can't do

Discussion, Not Rants, at the Holy See

There's been discussion of evolution - among many other things - at the Vatican. Discussion, not podium-pounding or sloganeering.

Why haven't we got some self-assured, simple (or simplistic) Final Answer?

For starters, the Catholic Church is about making disciples of all nations.3

Studying how the universe works is important. So is writing user's manuals. But neither is the job of the successors of Peter. (January 14, 2011)

As far as I can tell, nobody's put together a really satisfactory explanation for why critters living now don't always look like critters that lived here before:
"...This problem has occupied scientists since the last century and involves vast layers of public opinion...."
(John Paul II, "Man Is a Spiritual and Corporeal Being" (April 16, 1986))
I've put a longer excerpt from that document near the end of this post.4

Earth Exists, Therefore There is No God??!

What I think gets lost in the shouting is that there are at least three things involved in the idea of 'evolution:'
  • Science
    • Systematically studying the physical world
  • Secularism
    • Wanting religion to go away
  • Christianity
    • Hasn't gone away
      • For about two millennia now
Over-simplified? Of course.

Do I think a person must either 'believe in' science, or worship God? No.5 (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)

What do I think about science and faith?
  • One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is understanding
    (Catechism, 1831)
    • To the extent that science yields understanding and knowledge, science might be considered a gift of the Holy Spirit
      • Or, not: that's speculation on my part
  • Science is useful for telling us how things work
    • But it won't show us why we exist
      (Catechism, 2293)
I certainly don't see the existence of a universe which exhibits some degree of predictability as 'proof' that God does not exist.6

I'd like to see a day when more:
  • Folks who think God is real would realize that "science" and "secularism" aren't the same thing
  • Folks who don't want God to exist would realize that Fred (God Hates You) Phelps and his ilk are not all there is to religion
Outfits like the Phelps' church aren't, in my considered opinion, even representative of American Protestants. (June 14, 2011)

Of course, nobody's under an obligation to follow my preferences. Which is probably just as well. Free will and all that. More topics.

Space Aliens

The current idea of evolution is fairly new - no more than a century or so old.

Speculation about whether or not we're alone in the universe? Not so much.

The '50s, with those occasionally-awful movies - like I Married a Monster from Outer Space (1958) - were not the first time that folks wondered whether there was life 'out there.' That should be no surprise: We can see Earth's moon: and even without telescopes folks were able to put together reasonably plausible models of a universe that might be big. Really, really, big.

Some folks saw (literally and figuratively) a vast universe, and thought there could be other worlds like Earth. Other folks decided they didn't like that idea, and said so.

There was, I gather, quite a bit of discussion.

Then the Catholic Church stepped in, and made a rule about the discussion. Catholics are forbidden to assume that life can't exist elsewhere. And have been, since the 13th century.7

Flying Saucers?

Do I "believe in" space aliens? Flying saucers? Interstellar tea pots? Hardly. Not in the sense that I'm waiting for space people to come with revelations to save humanity and inaugurate a sort of secular utopia. Some aspects of the flying saucer craze seemed perilously close to idolatry.8 More topics.

Do I think it's possible that life exists on other worlds? That people who are spirit and matter, as we are, but not human, might live somewhere in this vast universe? Yes.

Like I said, I'm not going to tell God what He can and can't do.

Actually, I think it'd be more puzzling if we were living in the only place among all these stars, where people lived - and tried to understand how things worked. And why.

The Catholic Church

I'm not surprised that Catholics are forbidden to say that God couldn't have created other worlds that support living creatures.

I'm also not surprised that the Catholic Church hasn't reached a 'final' answer to the convoluted mess of assumptions, wishful thinking, and serious research that we call "evolution." That debate has only been going on for maybe two centuries now.

The Church has been dealing with the strengths and frailties of humanity for about two thousand years: drawing on records and traditions going back at least 15 centuries before my Lord was born.9 By our standards, the Victorian era ideas about evolution are still 'new business.'

Whether or not you take the Catholic Church seriously is up to you. I suggest, though, that you consider why, and how, successors of Peter10 managed to endure for about two thousand years: while nations and empires rose and fell, languages and cultures changed.

We haven't done a perfect job of following my Lord's orders,3 and that's another topic.

Realize, though, that after I started learning what the Catholic Church really was, I coverted to Catholicism.

Related posts:
1 There's a very brief overview of one ancient model of the universe in The New American Bible/s footnote 2 of Genesis:1

2 Actually, some folks would find their jobs rather awkward, if they took Bishop Ussher seriously. A 17th-century Biblical literalist's insistence on Earth not existing before 4004 B.C. might interfere with a geologist's work.

And I doubt NASA would let someone who insisted on a "Biblical" cosmology anywhere near the programming that guides robot spaceship to other planets.

Come to think of it: Bayonne, New Jersey, isn't mentioned once in the Bible. But I've yet to hear a radio preacher insist that Bayonne is a lie told by evil scientists. I've been over God, creation, and getting a grip, before. Quite often. Including this:
3 For about two millennia now, the Church has been carrying out these orders:
"11Then 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)
4 Every now and then there's something in the news about what (each time) seems to startle the reporter - folks at the Vatican are thinking about evolution. Not yelling about it. Not saying 'is not, is not, is not!!' - Thinking about the idea.

Here's an excerpt from something on the Vatican's website that was written in 1986, citing a document written in 1950:
"...In modern times the theory of evolution has raised a special difficulty against the revealed doctrine about the creation of man as a being composed of soul and body. With their own methods, many natural scientists study the problem of the origin of human life on earth. Some maintain, contrary to other colleagues of theirs, not only the existence of a link between man and the ensemble of nature, but also his derivation from the higher animal species. This problem has occupied scientists since the last century and involves vast layers of public opinion.

"The reply of the Magisterium was offered in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII in 1950. In it we read: 'The magisterium of the Church is not opposed to the theory of evolution being the object of investigation and discussion among experts. Here the theory of evolution is understood as an investigation of the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter, for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are created immediately by God...' (DS 3896).

"It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature...."
(John Paul II, "Man Is a Spiritual and Corporeal Being" (April 16, 1986))
5 I've written about the false dichotomy of science and religion, faith and reason, before:
6 I've suspected that one reason the Catholic Church annoys so many 'serious thinkers' is that the Holy See won't accept the 'sophisticated' notion that 'because the physical world exists, the soul cannot exist.'

Then there's the matter of most Americans understanding English - and that being just one of the many languages used by Catholics.

I've found that a document's footnotes sometimes are at least as valuable as the what they annotate:
"...34 The whole text of the letter is in: Pontifical Academy (2003), 370-374. Embarrassingly enough the English translation there ('new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution) of the French original of this passage is wrong. On the Vatican website there is only a Spanish version: 'Hoy, casi medio siglo después de la publicación de la encíclica, nuevos conocimientos llevan a pensar que la teoría de la evolución es más que una hipótesis'. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/ john_paul_ii/messages/pont_messages/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19961022_evoluzione_ sp.html). The French original and a correct English translation were published in John Paul II (1997).

"35 This evaluation is, however - again in the terminology of Vatican epistemology - contradicted by Pope Benedict, who maintains that John Paul II 'had reasons, when he said this ['evolution more than a hypothesis']. But it holds at the same time that the theory of evolution is not yet a complete scientifically verified theory'. (Horn/Wiedenhöfer, eds., 2007, 151). Whatever the Pope may mean - as is well known there is no 'verification' of theories - he certainly wants to play down the evaluation of his predecessor...."
(Pontifica Adademia Scientiarvm, Acta 20, "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life" The Proceedings of the Plenary Session 31 October - 4 November 2008 (pdf) p. 460 (2009))
7 Toward the end of Europe's Middle Ages, European scholars had studied the works of Aristotle, and took what the ancient Greek said very seriously. So far, so good: Aristotle was a very smart man, and made huge contributions to Western Civilization.

Aristotle doesn't seem to have liked the idea that there could be worlds other than the one we live on. At any rate, he said that we're on the only habitable place.

That's just one man's opinion. But when that man is Aristotle, it makes a difference:
"...Beginning about 1100 a.d., text after text of the great Greek philosopher Aristotle reached the West, and Christians were suddenly confronted with a unified, well- constructed account of the universe, an account written by a pagan. Aristotle denied that there could be a plurality of worlds. Of course, if there could not be a plurality of worlds, then the question of extraterrestrials was moot.

"There were three reactions to Aristotle's purely natural, non-Christian philosophical account: vehement rejection (the radical Augustinians), careful embrace (St. Thomas), and passionate embrace (the radical Aristotelians).

"Around 1265 a conflict between the two radical wings began to heat up, resulting in the famous (or, for Thomists, infamous) 219 Propositions in 1277, issued by the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier. Proposition 27 condemns all who hold the Aristotelian position 'that the first cause cannot make more than one world.'

"It should be stressed that the aim of this condemnation was not to affirm a plurality of worlds but to affirm God's omnipotence against any account of nature that seemed to restrict God's powers. Aristotle's insistence that there could only be one world accorded nicely with the Genesis account of creation, but it appeared to the radical Augustinians to make God the servant of natural necessity rather than its master...."
("Alien Ideas Christianity and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life," Benjamin D. Wiker, Crisis 20, no. 10 (November 2002))
A little over seven centuries later, we still don't know for sure whether there's life anywhere except on Earth. I don't "believe in" flying saucers. On the other hand, since I'm a practicing Catholic, I can't say that God couldn't have created a space-time continuum with more than one planet that supports life.

8 "Idolatry" isn't just about worshiping statues:
"Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, 'You cannot serve God and mammon.'44 Many martyrs died for not adoring 'the Beast'45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2113)
9 Abram/Abraham may have moved out of Ur about 4,000 years ago. Or as recently as 3,500 years back. Considering how often languages and calendar systems have changed over the last 35 centuries, I don't regard "early part of the second millennium B.C." as an unreasonable sort of estimate. Not considering the condition that detailed records of, say, the Sumerians are in today.
"...With the story of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (⇒ Genesis 11:27-⇒ 50:26), the character of the narrative changes. While we do not view the account of the patriarchs as history in the strict sense, nevertheless certain of the matters recounted from the time of Abraham onward can be placed in the actual historical and social framework of the Near East in the early part of the second millennium B.C. (2000-1500), and documented by non-biblical sources....." (Preface to the New American Bible)
10 The authority my Lord gave Peter has been handed down for about two millennia, from pope to pope - and to parish church down the street. I've mentioned this before. (June 15, 2011) But remember, I'm "some guy with a blog." Look it up. (Matthew 16:15-19; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 816, 857, 832-838, 857, 880-887, for starters)
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

God, Genesis, the Catholic Church, and Getting a Grip

About two years ago, some 'serious thinker' said that a new document from the Vatican was "purposely vague." I've written about that before. (July 18, 2009)

Instant Profundity - It's Easy!

The notion that the Catholic Church was 'vague,' or 'indecisive,' wasn't a particularly new one. It's one of the things folks who want to be taken seriously can say when they want to seem 'intelligent.'

There are quite a few off-the-shelf assumptions for folks who want to be 'serious' in a culturally-normative way. These include saying that:
  • The Catholic Church is
    • Harsh and rigid and uncaring
    • Kills people
      • 'Not letting' them do whatever screwball thing is in fashion at the moment
  • Christianity destroys the environment
    • This one's a perennial favorite
Me? I stopped trying to seem 'intelligent' and 'serious' by fashionable standards a long time ago. I've been entirely too interested in how things really work, and what folks actually said.

'Thou Shalt Plunder Creation For Thy Own Profit?'

The 'Christianity destroys the environment' notion is almost rooted in fact. Someone wearing the 'right' cultural blinders, and taking a quick run through a selection of verses - mostly Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 1:28 - might conclude that God gave animals, plants, and the rest of creation to Man to exploit.

Who Cares About the Next Generation?

This notion seems quite firmly-entrenched: that Christianity teaches vile, selfish values. Values which encourage Christians to rip through the world: until the last tree is cut down, the last mountain strip-mined into oblivion, and the coal fires it takes to run this filthy civilization choke the last vulture out of the sky.

Then, in this alternative reality, the plutocratic oppressors who ripped bread from the starving lips of the poor will die of old age and cirrhosis of the liver.

And shivering victims of oppression will be left with a dead planet.

Well, dying anyway.

Or pretty sick.

And not at all the way it was back in the 'Good Old Days:' which ended around, say 1850. Or 1492. Or whenever.1

I think being selfish is wrong.

I think it's wrong to live with no concern about what happens to folks who will come after I'm dead. I'm a practicing Catholic, so I must keep the needs of future generations in mind.

Looking Beyond Victorian England

Back to the notion that 'Christianity destroys the environment.'

Like I said, Genesis 1 has a verse or two which could suggest that the Judeo-Christian world view is horribly sick, twisted, and delusional. And encourages people to ravage the land and poison the seas.

In order to take that notion seriously, you have the 'right' attitude to begin with, read the selected verses really fast, and not think about it too much.

It helps if you take England and America of the late 19th century as your reference point for what is 'real.' I think that's fairly easy to do, particularly for folks who grew up in America during the last 50 years or so. Maybe elsewhere, too: but American culture(s) is/are the one(s) I know best.2

Which brings up the question of whether this country is more of a melting pot - or crazy quilt. And that's another topic. (April 1, 2011)

Humanity, Creation: and Rules

The Catholic Church tells us how we're suppose to treat animals, and all of creation. It's 'vague' in the sense that Catholic teachings can't be summed up as "ravage the planet, because you should be utterly selfish," or "human beings kill Earth and should drop dead."

I don't think we're even 'moderate.' But never mind me: I've got the authority of "some guy with a blog."

Let's see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about animals, people, and God:
  • Animals are for our use, not the other way around
  • We can't 'do anything we want' with animals
  • Animals
  • Human beings are
    • Animals
    • People
    • Made in the image and likeness of God
'People are animals?!' What: the Pope is one of those godless heathen scientist fellers? That's yet another topic.3

Related posts:
1 Assuming that science and technology would end poverty and hunger disease and make everything just about perfect actually made a little sense in the late 19th century. I think we tend to forget what happened before antibiotics, mass production, and steam power got many of us out from behind a horse-drawn plow.

Oh, by the way, the best and brightest (just ask them) keep insisting that:

WE'RE ALL
GONNA DIE!!!!!!

And have been, at least since I started paying attention to the latest 'End Times Bible Prophecy' wannabe-bestselling authors, and their secular equivalents.

Aside from the 'dust to dust' aspect of the human experience, there's a little bit of fact behind the secular analog of 'End Times Prophecies.'

Genesis 1:28 is where you'll find " 'Be fertile and multiply...'." Sometime this year, I'm told, there's going to be an estimated 7,000,000,000 people living on Earth.

Taking fashionable assumptions seriously, that means that you'll start getting really hungry a few hours from when you first read this post. Then, about six to eight weeks from now, we'll all starve to death. ("Starvation Deaths, from "Dr. Dinesh Rao's Forensic Pathology" (© 2011))

Except maybe for a few cannibals.

If we run low on water first, it may take about 10 to 12 days for EVERYBODY YOU KNOW TO DIE!!!! HORRIBLY!!!!!! AND YOUR LITTLE DOG, TOO!!!!!!!!

*Ahem* Seriously, we're radically over Earth's 'carrying capacity' right now. And have been for centuries. Millennia. If we weren't people, we'd be in trouble. And that's another topic:2 Quite a lot of the sort of 'social Darwinism,' and assumptions that the 8,000-or-so-mile-wide ball of rock we live on has "infinite" resources, slopped over into the 20th century. I can remember the trailing edge of that particular 'Good Old Days.' The '60s happened for a reason, and I'll leave it at that for now.

3 See
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Life on Other Worlds, and the Catholic Church

While writing a post for another blog, I realized that my micro-review of an article on space aliens was turning into a post for this blog. That happens once in a while: which, given my ADHD-inattentive brain, should be no surprise.

I copied the link-lists I'd made after my mind jumped the tracks into this post, which I'll get to in a minute. The post, I mean: not the links. They're at the end of this post. First, though, a little blatant self-promotion.

A post on the topic of assumptions, space aliens, sharks, and Cthulhu:

Superstitious, Willfully Ignorant, and Narrow-Minded?

America, I've heard, is a "Christian" country. A majority of folks living in America say they're Christians, something I discussed in another blog. (Another War-on-Terror Blog (January 9, 2010))

That's nice, in a way: although I don't assume that God relies on opinion polls to keep His position. And that's another topic, sort of.

I've run into other folks in America who seem convinced that 'those Christians over there' are gaggle of superstitious, hate-filled, nitwits with barely enough reading ability to get through a few verses of their King James Bibles.1

I've also run into folks who were pretty good evidence for the 'Christians are nitwits' viewpoint. I grew up listening to some of them: yet again another topic. ("Why I Became a Catholic")

One of the current crop of that American subculture, Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, made the news again today. (FoxNews.com (January 11, 2011))

Reuters. Nov. 11, 2010: Members of the Westboro Baptist Church hold anti-gay signs at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia on Veterans Day.
(Reuters photo, via FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)

That's a file photo of folks from Westboro Baptist Church members, taken at Arlington National Cemetery last Veterans Day, 2010.

In my opinion, they're not your typical Christians.
"...I've made the point before, and probably will again, that folks like Pat Robertson, Tony Alamo, and the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas; are not all there is to Christianity. I don't think they're even representative of Protestant Christianity...."
(October 12, 2010, quoted November 19, 2010)
Folks who are more-or-less on the same page with the Westboro lot tend, I've found, to be somewhat unwilling to acknowledge much of what the rest of us have learned since around 1859.

Can't say that I blame them, in a way. (March 20, 2009) Creation's turned out to be immensely more vast in time and space than many imagined.

Either that, or astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, and paleontologists have made a complete hash of evidence they've found. Or maybe God deliberately planted fraudulent evidence in order to condemn those who used the brains He gave them.

It's a little difficult to imagine that so many researchers in so many fields could be that wrong for a century and a half. And I really have trouble believing that God's a vindictive liar.

Before getting back to space aliens and the Catholic Church, a quick recap of my views on the 'superstitious, willfully ignorant, and narrow-minded' view of Christendom. Specifically, whether those terms have much to do with the Catholic Church.

Superstitious?

I've been over this before:
Don't take my word for it, though. You can check out Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2111.

Willfully Ignorant?

I suspect that quite a few Americans don't think that Christians should be interested in science. The notion that science and religion get along about as well as mongoose and cobra seems firmly planted in American culture. Maybe Western culture as a whole. I've been over that before, too:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a bit to say about science and research.
"Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health."
(Catechism, 2292)
There's more, mostly a reminder that scientists are not 'beyond good and evil.' (Catechism, 2293-2296)

Narrow-Minded?

I've been over this before, too:
Which brings me back to space aliens.

Space Aliens and the Holy See

I keep running into the idea that discovering life elsewhere in the universe would mean the end of Christianity.

As for our learning that life on another world included intelligent life: people; who weren't shaped pretty much just like us? The assumption in some circles, I gather, is that news like that would throw Christians into a pit of despair and utterly shatter our faith. (August 6, 2010)

Some folks, whose Christianity is rooted in a sort of nostalgia for the days before Darwin: Maybe.

Me? Let's put it this way: As a practicing Catholic, I'm not allowed to say that God couldn't have created life elsewhere in the universe. The notion that Earth was the only place where life exists came up - and was declared a heresy.

In the 13th century. (April 19, 2010)

Related posts:
Speculating about the mind of the alien:
More:
1 I like the literary style of the King James Bible, but it's not the one I study regularly. Yet another topic. (August 27, 2009)

I've discussed the Bible before, including these posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

  • A 'Saint Brian,' Sort of
    My name is Brian Gill. In keeping with the customs of my culture, the first name is one which my parents chose for me, the last is the name ...
  • Blind Mice; Heroism During the 'Batman' Killings
    The London 2012 Olympics start today: but instead of analyzing the significance of a South Korean flag being displayed with a North Korean...
  • A Catholic Citizen in America: New Location
    The good news is still that Blogger's changes haven't made images in my posts here unviewable. ( May 6-16, 2016 ) Instead of jumpi...
  • Mass Murder in Orlando
    I'd be writing a longer, more detailed, post about this; but still haven't resolved some technical issues. ( May 6, 2016 ; updated M...
  • Elijah and Pushing a Rock
    10th Sunday in Ordinary Time, 2016: 1 Kings 17:17 - 24 Galatians 1:11 - 19 Luke 7:11 - 17 Third Sunday of Easter, 2016 by Deacon L...

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.