Showing posts with label humility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humility. Show all posts

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Washing Feet: Love and Service

Holy Thursday, 2016:

Holy Thursday, 2016

By Deacon Lawrence N. Kaas
March 24, 2016

"If I, therefore ... Have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another's feet."

To wash someone's feet in the ancient world really meant something. It was, almost always done, by household servants as a way of indicating the importance of the other person, as a way of showing respect. It was a show of humility and tenderness in submissiveness and deference. The person doing the washing was always "lesser" than the one whose feet were being washed. And the fact that Jesus did it spoke volumes. In a sense he was saying, "you must be a servant. You must be humble. You must come in close to the one in need. You must get your hands dirty. You must (maybe for the first time) think exclusively of the other person."

So what does that look like in this time and in this place?

Maybe it means.....

That the starting point is always the dignity of every single person, no exceptions.

That the happiness and well-being of others is as, or more important, then ours.

That we don't have to win every argument.

That we don't have to have all the answers, and that others have something to teach us.

That the person we like the least is precisely the one we need to help the most.

That we must never be okay with others being lonely and forgotten or unloved.

Maybe it simply means that we should approach every single person we encounter, intent on answering the question, "what can I give? What does this person need from me?" And not what can I get from this person?

How can we possibly do that? Well, it's only possible if God is alive and well within us, shaping all we say and do. And nowhere is that hope more visible than at this altar, at the sacred table whereby our loving Lord and Savior feeds us with his very life, his very self -- our God poured out for us and within us so that we can do all the incredible things he calls us to do. Think about it -- the body of Christ given to the body of Christ so that we can more perfectly become the body of Christ, that is so that each of us can strive to live lives of profound goodness, kindness, generosity, mercy, and love. That's the promise and the challenge of the Eucharist.

So you all be Good, Be Holy, preach 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: , , , , , ,

Friday, September 11, 2015

Big Eyes, Bonobo Squeaks

Neanderthals apparently had bigger eyes than folks living today. One scientist says that means they didn't play well with others.

Bonobos, chimps living south of the Congo River, squeak. The squeaks are the same, whether they're happy, sad, or angry — and may tell us something about how language developed.
  1. Neanderthals: Big Eyes, Big Brains, and Being Social
  2. Squeaking Bonobos
I think accepting God's universe 'as is' makes sense, so I'll ramble on about hubris, movies, and St. Thomas Aquinas, before discussing Neanderthals and squeaking bonobos.

Hubris and the Man With the X-Ray Eyes


Hubris, self-confidence above and beyond the call of reason, makes dialog like this possible:
"Dr. James Xavier: I'm blind to all but a tenth of the universe.

"Dr. Sam Brant: My dear friend, only the gods see everything.

"Dr. James Xavier: My dear doctor, I'm closing in on the gods."
("X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes" (1963), via IMDB.com)
Maybe hubris contributed to hoaxes like Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor; and atrocities like the Auschwitz, Dachau, Tuskegee, and Willowbrook State School experiments. (March 27, 2015; August 8, 2014)

Cautionary tales like Marlowe's Faustus, the legend of Daedalus and Icarus, and 'mad scientist' movies, can teach useful ideas: like 'trying to do the impossible is a bad idea;' or 'drinking and driving don't mix.'

But I wonder if movies like "Island of Lost Souls," "The Fly," and "The Brain That Wouldn't Die," teach that curiosity is bad: particularly when it's scientific curiosity. (August 8, 2014)

Science and technology, studying this universe and developing new tech, is part of being human. Using the brains God gave us does not offend the Almighty. Ethics apply, as they do with everything we do. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159, 2292-2296)

This isn't a new idea. One of the Genesis creation stories has Adam, not God, naming critters:
"So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name."
(Genesis 2:19)
Putting anything — pleasure, family, power, science — anything, or anyone, above God on the priority list is a very bad idea. 'It's for science' is not an excuse for hurting folks. (Catechism, 2112-2114)

Truth and Secondary Causes


I could be a Christian and believe that we live on a plate, and that stars are on a dome between us and the cosmic ocean.

But my faith doesn't require ignorance of what we've learned in the last couple dozen centuries. (March 29, 2015)

We're told that truth is important: in relations with each other, and with God. (Psalms 15:2-3; Ephesians 4:15; Catechism, 144, 150, 153-160, 2464-2503)

We're also told that truth about creation and the universe is important. (Catechism, 287-305)

That does not mean that Catholics must believe that Earth is flat, and only a few thousand years old.

The universe is a place of order and beauty, and scientific discoveries are invitations "...to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator...." (Catechism, 32, 283, 341)

I don't have to believe that physical realities exist or that God exists. Everything we observe reflects some facet of the Creator's truth, according to its nature. (Catechism, 301-308)

All natural processes involve secondary causes: creatures changing in knowable ways, following laws woven into this creation. (Catechism, 306-308)

Believing that God creates, and knowing that a fire's light and heat involve electron transitions, doesn't threaten an informed faith.
"...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God...."
(Catechism, 159)

Humility, Science, and Being Reasonable


Humility, Catholic style, is accepting reality:
"HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as 'poverty of spirit' (2546)."
(Catechism, Glossary, H)
Pride, in the Catholic sense, is pretty close to hubris in ancient Greek tragedies: "excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis." (Oxford Dictionaries)

Sin is being unreasonable. Getting personal preferences and eternal principles mixed up is a bad idea, and I've been over this before. (April 26, 2015; September 7, 2014)
"PRIDE: One of the seven capital sins. Pride is undue self–esteem or self–love, which seeks attention and honor and sets oneself in competition with God (1866)."
(Catechism, Glossary, P)

"SIN: An offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience. Sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the eternal law of God. In judging the gravity of sin, it is customary to distinguish between mortal and venial sins (1849, 1853, 1854)."
(Catechism, Glossary, S)
St. Thomas Aquinas explained why boasting is a bad idea. Basically, it's an offense against reason and truth: and God. It's a really bad idea.
"...The sin of boasting may be considered in two ways. First, with regard to the species of the act, and thus it is opposed to truth; as stated (in the body of the article and Question [110], Article [2]). Secondly, with regard to its cause, from which more frequently though not always it arises: and thus it proceeds from pride as its inwardly moving and impelling cause...."
("The Summa Theologica," Question 112, St. Thomas Aquinas)

"...Humility restrains the appetite from aiming at great things against right reason: while magnanimity urges the mind to great things in accord with right reason. Hence it is clear that magnanimity is not opposed to humility: indeed they concur in this, that each is according to right reason...."
"The Summa Theologica," Question 161, St. Thomas Aquinas)

"...'A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is'; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud. Now right reason requires that every man's will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason...."
("The Summa Theologica," Question 162, St. Thomas Aquinas)
(translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))
We're called to holiness, not delusion, so I figure pretending I'm more or less than what I am is imprudent.

So, I think, is clinging to our notions of how the universe 'should' work: instead of learning more about the wonder-filled realities around us. (March 29, 2015; November 21, 2014)


(From Thomas Hawkins; via The Online Books Page, University of Pennsylvania; used w/o permission.)

- - - and that reminds me of H. P. Lovecraft, Yeats, and fashionable melancholia; which are different topics.

1. Neanderthals: Big Eyes, Big Brains, and Being Social



(From NHM/Alamy, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Neanderthals (r) had bigger eyes"
(BBC News))
"The Mystery of Neanderthals' Massive Eyes"
Melissa Hogenboom, BBC News (August 6, 2015)

"Our extinct cousins had eyes much larger than ours. Were these giant peepers the reason for the Neanderthals' demise, or the secret of their success?

"We won't ever come face to face with a real-life Neanderthal. They went extinct thousands of years ago. All we can do is use their remains to reconstruct what they were like.

"In many ways they were a lot like us. In fact they were so similar, our species actually interbred with theirs.

"Nevertheless there were some differences. One stands out: they had weirdly large eyes...."
I know too much about my ancestors to let the second and third paragraphs go without comment. I'll try to keep my harangue about 'species,' 'interbreeding,' and people to a minimum this time.

From some viewpoints, I'm the result of "miscegenation," another word for "interracial marriage."

Not Missing the 'Good Old Days'


The daughter of a respectable family caught the eye of an Irishman a couple generations back — to the great dismay of her parents.

As one of my ancestors said, "he doesn't have family, he's Irish." The youngsters got married anyway, which made me possible. (October 31, 2014; July 6, 2014)

The respectable family coped, most Americans eventually accepted the Irish, miscegenation hasn't been a felony here since 1967, and I am heartily glad that the 'good old days' aren't coming back.

About Neanderthals, species, and all that — scientists still say that Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Red Deer Cave people are different "species."

We don't have Red Deer Cave DNA yet, but most folks living today have Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestors. I'm guessing that Red Deer Cave people are no less "human" than the rest of us.

I'll admit to a bias here, since my ancestors are from northwestern Europe, Neanderthal country. I don't think our profuse body hair and Neanderthal DNA make us less "human" than folks from other parts of the world. But I'm one of 'them,' so like I said: I'm biased.

Ainu apparently aren't genetically similar to Europeans, although I'm not clear on which Europeans Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza, used for comparison — and that's almost another topic.

The more we learn about life on Earth, the more scientists revise the old Linnaean taxonomy. (May 29, 2015; November 21, 2014)

A century from now, maybe sooner, looking at Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the rest of us, as separate "species" may seem as quaint as seeing the Irish and English as separate "races" does today. (May 29, 2015; October 31, 2014; July 11, 2014)

Differences and DNA



(From Elisabeth Daynes/SPL, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("What a Neanderthal may have looked like"
(BBC News)
"...Neanderthals were around before we evolved. They first appeared around 250,000 years ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia.

"Our own species, Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. They reached Europe around 45,000 years ago, and found it was inhabited by Neanderthals.

"We co-existed with them for 5,000 years, according to the latest estimate. But eventually they disappeared, perhaps as early as 40,000 years ago.

"In 2013, a team led by Eiluned Pearce of the University of Oxford in the UK proposed a radical explanation: their eyes were to blame...."
(Melissa Hogenboom, BBC News)
Summarizing the next 986 words in Melissa Hogenboom's article: Neanderthals almost certainly had bigger eyes than the average person living today, but that probably didn't kill them off.

Again, I don't think Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are "us" and "them."

We're learning that folks with Neanderthal traits started showing up in Eurasia some 350,000 to 600,000 years back. The anatomically modern human (AMH) model that showed up about 200,000 years ago in Africa.

Some time after that, folks whose descendants would be today's Europeans started heading into Eurasia, meeting Neanderthals and other pioneers.

I haven't had my DNA tested, but unless I'm really weird, I've got Neanderthal ancestors. As I've said before, humanity's story is complicated: and Neanderthals are arguably no more "extinct" that Gauts. (May 29, 2015; July 11, 2014)

Nifty Idea, Big Problems


We've come a long way since Marcelline Boule had an artist draw that picture of a 'primitive' Neanderthal, based on his study of an arthritic old Neanderthal's partial remains.

In fairness, your average Neanderthal would have trouble blending into most crowds today. Think someone like William "The Refrigerator" Perry on a high school's relay team.

Neanderthal adults had bigger brains than we do, on average, but they were — robust, so the brain/body ratio wasn't all that different.

The average Neanderthal brain wasn't shaped quite like the average AMH, which suggests that the wiring was a bit different.

Pearce's team says that their big eyes had to have bigger visual cortices to handle their bigger eyes: and that this meant the 'social' part of their brains was smaller.

If that was true, Folks today might mostly look like us because our ancestors were better at cooperating.

It's a nifty idea, with big problems.

For starters, as Hogenboom's article points out, the human brain is heavily interconnected. Visual processing also involves parts of the brain used for storing and processing memories and emotions.

Some of us recall and imagine images better than others, some don't, and that's yet another topic:

Eyes and Size of Social Groups


Folks at the University of Wisconsin-Madison compared 18 living primate species. They discovered that the size of their eye sockets and social groups were connected.

The big-eyed primates have larger social groups than their small-eyed counterparts — and, for the most part, bigger neocortices.

Maybe Neanderthals declined because they spent too much time playing the Pleistocene equivalent of Parcheesi. Then again, maybe not.

I'm not at all surprised that Neanderthals and folks who lived in other parts of the world didn't look exactly alike.

There isn't as much regional variation today, but folks whose ancestors have been living in Kenya, Japan, and Scandinavia don't look quite alike.

Interestingly, folks who live in upper latitudes may still have very slightly larger eyes, and marginally bigger brains, than folks who live near the equator. Since my ancestors are from the big-eyed folks, I'm not inclined to think that we're 'less evolved,' but again: I'll admit to a bias.

More:

2. Squeaking Bonobos



(From Zanna Clay/Lui Kotale Bonobo Project, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
"Bonobo squeaks hint at earlier speech evolution"
Jonathan Webb, BBC News (August 4, 2015)

"Wild bonobos use a single high-pitched call in a variety of contexts, showing a flexibility in their communication that was thought to be uniquely human.

"That is the conclusion of a study by UK and Swiss psychologists.

"Bonobos are just as closely related to humans as chimpanzees, but their wild communication is much less studied.

"Researchers say the new findings push back the development of context-free vocal calls to our shared ancestor with bonobos, 6-10 million years ago...."
Non-human primates like chimps and bonobos, communicate with calls that indicate an emotional state. For that matter, so do we: just listen to crowd sounds during the Olympics.

This research apparently shows that functional flexibility — communicating with the same sound in different contexts — isn't uniquely human.

We start squealing and growling early, sometimes as early as three to four months after birth: leaving our parents guessing whether we're happy, sad, or just squealing and growling.

Turns out, bonobos do pretty much the same thing: except they squeak. Or maybe it's more like a peep.

The bonobo squeak or peep isn't tied to one activity or emotional state: so either the bonobos figure out what the others are saying from context — or maybe they just squeak a lot.

Analysis of recorded bonobo squeaks show that they're acoustically identical, regardless of what the bonobo is doing. The squeaks could be the start of language. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the bonobo equivalent of whistling why they work/play/whatever.

Either way: this is new information.

What it means is something I'm pretty sure we'll learn, if we keep studying bonobos. Since studying this world is part of being human,1 I think it's very likely indeed that we'll keep learning more about bonobos, how language emerged, and ourselves.

More:
My take on newly-discovered pages from humanity's long story:
If you've been here before, you probably know why I don't fear knowledge.

1 Intense folks like the fictional Mr. Squibbs notwithstanding, science and technology aren't transgressions.

They're part of being human.

We're supposed to be curious, study this astounding universe, and develop new technology.

Ethics apply, but part of our job is taking care of this world: and that takes knowledge and tech. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2292-2296, 2402-2405, 2456)

I talk about that a lot:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Why Make a Universe?


(From NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); ESA/Hubble Collaboration; used w/o permission.)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builder's craft."
(Psalms 19:2)
Genesis 1:1-31 says that God created the universe, and us, and found everything "very good."

Psalms 19:2 says that the celestial light show declares the glory of God.

Who is this message being directed at?

Us, apparently.

St. Bonaventure said that God's creation communicates the Almighty's glory, St. Thomas Aquinas said that God creates because the Almighty is good and loving, and I think they're right.1 (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 293)

God created the universe, and humanity, because God loves us and wants to adopt us. It's that simple. (John 3:17; Catechism, 27-30, 52, 1825)

Perspective


Of course, it's not simple, too.

For one thing, we're starting to realize that we may have neighbors: other creatures like us, with bodies and free will, but not from Earth.

Then again, maybe we don't. Either way — as Porky Pine said — "it's a mighty sobering thought." (November 7, 2014; June 27, 2014)

We've learned a bit since the Psalms were written, about two dozen centuries back, give or take a quarter-millennium.

Living in a universe that's immensely bigger and older than Ussher's tidy little version of a Mesopotamian model upsets some folks.

I figure part of my job is appreciating God's creation: not telling the Almighty how it should be made. (March 29, 2015)

Scientific discoveries are invitations to "...even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator...." (Catechism, 283)

I've talked about faith, reason, science, and getting a grip, before. Often. (June 14, 2015; April 10, 2015; December 19, 2014)

"As a Grain from a Balance"



(From NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); ESA/Hubble Collaboration; used w/o permission.)
"4 Indeed, before you the whole universe is as a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth.

"But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook the sins of men that they may repent.

"For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.

"And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?"
(Wisdom 11:22-25)
God isn't merely big and strong. God is "...infinite ... almighty and ineffable ... infinitely greater than all his works...." (Catechism, 202, 300)

What we're learning about the scale of this universe doesn't, I think, make God 'more infinite.' But I think it adds emphasis to verses like these:
"When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place -

"4What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?

"5Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor."
(Psalms 8:4-6)
I also think remembering who and what we are is important. And that's another topic.

More about faith and using my brain:
1 From the Catechism, about God, creation, and love:
"Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: 'The world was made for the glory of God.'134 St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things 'not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it',135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: 'Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand.'136 The First Vatican Council explains:
"This one, true God, of his own goodness and 'almighty power', not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel 'and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . .'137
"The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us 'to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace',138 for 'the glory of God is man fully alive; moreover man's life is the vision of God: if God's revelation through creation has already obtained life for all the beings that dwell on earth, how much more will the Word's manifestation of the Father obtain life for those who see God.'139 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God 'who is the creator of all things may at last become "all in all", thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude.'140 "
(Catechism, 293-294)
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Humility, Science, and Accepting Reality

I could be a Christian, following my Lord, if I believed that we live on a flat plate with nothing between us and the cosmic ocean but a solid dome that holds the stars.

But my faith doesn't depend on maintaining ignorance of what we've learned in the last two dozen or so centuries.

Imagery in 1 Samuel 2:8 and Psalms 148:4 is beautiful, poetic, and consistent with Mesopotamian cosmology: hardly surprising, considering where the Hebrews lived. (July 15, 2014; January 3, 2014)

That was then, this is now, and we've learned quite a bit about the universe since the days of Kubaba and Enmerkar. Some details of their lives seem exaggerated, but folks still pad their resumes, and that — isn't another topic.

Accepting Reality


Humility, Catholic style, isn't a psychotic delusion: a morose counterpart to megaolmania. Despondency isn't a virtue, gloominess is not next to Godliness, and I've been over that before. (June 3, 2012; January 8, 2012; May 5, 2011)

Humility is accepting reality.

In my case, it's acknowledging that I've got a broad range of creative talents, including freakishly enhanced language skills.

That's the kit I was issued when God put me together. My contribution has been deciding to do something with the package. (September 1, 2013; April 11, 2012)

I was also born with defective hips that have since been swapped out — a huge improvement — and lived for decades with undiagnosed depression and something on the autism spectrum.

Again, it's part of the kit I was issued. No complaints, particularly since my circumstances helped me learn to see beauty in just about everything. (February 8, 2015; October 5, 2014; February 12, 2011)

Pretending that I'm less than I am is nuts.

Wanting to seem like more than I really am is a bad idea, too. That's what the sin we call pride is about. That sort of pride is as unreasonable as trying to believe I'm stupid.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about boasting, humility and pride, including these bits:
"...The sin of boasting may be considered in two ways. First, with regard to the species of the act, and thus it is opposed to truth; as stated (in the body of the article and Question [110], Article [2]). Secondly, with regard to its cause, from which more frequently though not always it arises: and thus it proceeds from pride as its inwardly moving and impelling cause...."
("The Summa Theologica," Question 112, St. Thomas Aquinas)

"...Humility restrains the appetite from aiming at great things against right reason: while magnanimity urges the mind to great things in accord with right reason. Hence it is clear that magnanimity is not opposed to humility: indeed they concur in this, that each is according to right reason...."
"The Summa Theologica," Question 161, St. Thomas Aquinas)

"...'A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is'; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud. Now right reason requires that every man's will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason...."
("The Summa Theologica," Question 162, St. Thomas Aquinas)
(translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))

Humility, Pride, Sin, and Temperance; Catholic Style — Definitions


As usual, it's a matter of balance and reason:
"HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as 'poverty of spirit' (2546)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary, H)

"PRIDE: One of the seven capital sins. Pride is undue self–esteem or self–love, which seeks attention and honor and sets oneself in competition with God (1866)."
(Catechism, Glossary, P)

"SIN: An offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience. Sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the eternal law of God. In judging the gravity of sin, it is customary to distinguish between mortal and venial sins (1849, 1853, 1854)."
(Catechism, Glossary, S)

"TEMPERANCE: The cardinal moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasure and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the mastery of the will over instinct, and keeps natural desires within proper limits (1809)."
(Catechism, Glossary, T)

Scientists, Ethics, and Horrors: Imagined and Real


I've said this before, a lot: science and technology, studying this astounding universe and developing new tools, is part of being human.

It's what we do, and necessary for one of our jobs: taking care of this world. (Catechism, 373, 2292-2296, 2415, 2456)

Ethics matter in science, just like everything else we do. (Catechism, 2292-2296)

A scientist occasionally embraces the notion that smart folks are "beyond good and evil." That attitude gives us movies like "The Brain That Wouldn't Die," and real-life horrors like the Willowbrook State School experiments.

No wonder some folks see thinking and science as sinful. (February 27, 2015; August 10, 2014)

I don't: but I'm a Catholic, with a taste for research. I like to find out what the Church actually says: not what I heard some guy say he read somewhere — or what I think should be true.

Being an adult convert, and the child of two librarians, may have something to do with it; and that — is another topic.

Order, Beauty, and Using our Brains


The universe is a place of order and beauty.

It's being created by God: constantly upheld and sustained, in a "state of journeying" toward an ultimate perfection. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 32, 302)

We're rational creatures, created in the image of God, who are "little less than a god:" with the power and frightening responsibilities that come with our nature. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7; Psalms 8:6; Catechism, 355-373, 2402, 2415-2418, 2456)

What gets us in trouble is forgetting that "little less than a god" isn't "God."

God's God, I'm not, and I'm okay with that. (March 8, 2015; June 10, 2012)

Using reason, we can see God's work in the universe. Studying this world is okay. (Catechism, 35-36, 282-289, 1704, 2292-2295)

Thinking is not a sin. Using the brains God gave us is part of being human. (Wisdom 7:17; Catechism, 35, 159, 1730-1738)

Science and Humility


Folks knew that the universe is vast and ancient when Imhotep designed an Egyptian step pyramid.

That was around the time Lothal was a major port city — give or take a few centuries. The famous Giza complex came a little later, and that's yet another topic.

Learning that the world is bigger and older than some European scholars thought, a few centuries back, doesn't bother me.

At all. (July 15, 2014)

For me, it's an opportunity for "even greater admiration" of God's greatness. (Catechism, 283)
"4 Indeed, before you the whole universe is as a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth.

"But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook the sins of men that they may repent.

"For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.

"And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?"
(Wisdom 11:22-25)
We're created by God, designed with a thirst for truth and for God — made from the stuff of this world — and made "in the image of God," creatures who are matter and spirit. Using our senses and reason, we can observe the world's order and beauty: learning something of God in the process. (Genesis 1:26, 2:7; Catechism, 27, 31-35, 282-289, 355-361)

I think the sensible — and humble — approach to reality is studying God's universe, accepting what we find, and learning more about it. Insisting that God conforms to ideas published in 17th-century Britain: not so much. (January 9, 2015; October 10, 2014)

We wouldn't have science, arguably, if the Church hadn't been insisting that the universe operates under rational, knowable, physical laws. And that's yet again another topic. Topics. (January 9, 2015; November 21, 2014; October 31, 2014)

More reasons why I'm okay with reality:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Humility: Accepting Reality

A man trying to organize a men's choir said I had a fine voice. Given a choice, he asked, wouldn't someone prefer a beautiful voice to a powerful mind or athletic body?

I agreed, but was a bit embarrassed: since I've got two out of the three. My wife's opined that if bad hips hadn't kept me from excelling at sports: I'd be insufferable. She's probably right.

Self-Esteem Run Amok


Since pride is a sin, is it wrong to be proud of my voice?

Yes — and no. It depends on what sort of "pride" is involved.

When "pride" is self-esteem run amok, it's one of the seven capital sins: along with avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1866)

Ancient Greeks called it hubris. It's a bad idea in stories, from "Oedipus Rex," to Milton's "Paradise Lost" and Paul Ryder's "Cosmic Monsters."

Most of us don't get the sort of reality checks featured in Greek tragedies and epic poems, but hubris is a bad idea in real life, too.
"...A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you...."
("Mere Christianity," C. S. Lewis)
Since I'm a Catholic, I see it as a cause of envy, unjust social and economic inequities, war, and hatred of God. (Catechism, 2094, 2317, 2540)

Getting a Grip About Humility


One sort of humility is a sort of make-believe: smart folks pretending they're not; strong people pretending they're puny. Acting that way is "polite" in some situations, but in its own way it's as unreasonable as hubris.

Another sort of humility is the opposite of hubris. I'll get back to that.

St. Thomas Aquinas had quite a bit to say about pride, reason, and getting a grip, including this:
"...'A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is'; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud. Now right reason requires that every man's will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason...."
("The Summa Theologica," St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))
I'm "proud" of my voice, to the extent that I'm happy about having the native ability, and opportunities to learn how it works. That's using "right reason" to understand how I fit into my culture. But boasting about what God gave me would be an "offense against truth." (Catechism, 2481)

As if life wasn't complicated enough, I could even be proud of being humble:
"...Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, 'By jove! I'm being humble', and almost immediately pride—pride at his own humility—will appear...."
("The Screwtape Letters," C. S. Lewis)

A Balanced View


Humility is a virtue. Being delusional, not so much. (September 1, 2013)

As a Catholic, I'm expected to have a balanced view of myself, others, and God. It's okay to admit that I'm pretty good at writing, for example: as long as I acknowledge God's role in my existence and abilities.

I'm also expected to avoid pride. It's a matter of moderation: remembering that God's God, and I'm not.
"HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as 'poverty of spirit' (2546)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary, H)

"PRIDE: One of the seven capital sins. Pride is undue self–esteem or self–love, which seeks attention and honor and sets oneself in competition with God (1866)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary, P)
Humility is a good idea, but blindly accepting every humiliation isn't smart.

As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, God gave us brains, and expects us to use them:
"...However, it is the mark of humility to accept humiliations without hesitation; not in all cases, of course, but when it is necessary. For, since humility is a virtue, it does not work without discretion. So, it is not proper to humility, but to stupidity, for a man to accept every kind of humiliation, but what must be done for the sake of virtue a person does not reject because of humiliation...."
("Contra Gentiles," Book Three: Providence, Part II: Chapters 84-163; Thomas Aquinas; translated by Vernon J. Bourke; via Dominican House of Studies, Priory of the Immaculate Conception (www.dhspriory.org)) [emphasis mine]
Being humble means accepting the truth: about myself, God, the universe, everything.

Believing that God is truth, and that truth cannot contradict truth, leads to a counter-cultural conclusion — Science, studying this wonder-filled universe, is okay. (Catechism, 159, 214-217)

Sin and Science


Over the generations, some scientists have acted as if they were "beyond good and evil," using people for occasionally-lethal experiments.

Between real atrocities like what happened at Willowbrook State School, and more-or-less lurid 'mad scientist' movies, it's small wonder that some folks think science is bad. (December 17, 2012; November 18, 2011)

Science, studying this universe, is part of being human. But like anything else we do, ethics matter. Experiments that needlessly endanger the subject are not right: even if the person understands the danger, and agrees to the experiment. (Catechism, 2292-2295)

The trick is hanging onto humility:
"...Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work...."
(Catechism, 299)
Science can't tell us why we exist, or what our goals should be. But science and technology can, used properly, let us help each other more effectively. (Catechism, 1723, 1942, 2292-2293, 2493)

We are made "in the image of God," stewards of this world: with the power and responsibility that goes with the job.
"4 What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?

"5 Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor."
(Psalms 8:6)
"...The development of science and technology, this splendid testimony of the human capacity for understanding and for perseverance, does not free humanity from the obligation to ask the ultimate religious questions. Rather, it spurs us on to face the most painful and decisive of struggles, those of the heart and of the moral conscience...."
("Veritatis splendor," John Paul II (August 6, 1993))
More of my take on hubris, humility, and taking the universe 'as is:'
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, August 8, 2014

Cuddly Dinosaurs and Feathers

That cute little critter isn't a bird, but it's covered in feathers: unless Kulinda insulation is something new. Newly-discovered, that is.
  1. Dinosaurs, Birds, and Scorpions: Tales of Survival
  2. Warm, Fuzzy — Dinosaurs
  3. Pelagornithids: "Like Creatures out of a Fantasy Novel"
Faced with our rapidly-expanding knowledge of Earth and the universe, folks have options.

A person can decide that fuzzy dinosaurs don't matter in the everyday life, which is true.

Another option is to decide that humanity had all the answers in 3000 B.C., 350 B.C., 1654 A.D., or some other arbitrary date: and actively reject what's been learned in since, say, 1666.

My preference is taking the universe "as is," acknowledging that we have learned a great deal: and most likely have a great deal more learn.

Hubris and Cautionary Tales


Without hubris, self-confidence above and beyond the call of reason, dialog like this wouldn't happen:
"Dr. James Xavier: I'm blind to all but a tenth of the universe.

"Dr. Sam Brant: My dear friend, only the gods see everything.

"Dr. James Xavier: My dear doctor, I'm closing in on the gods."
("X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes" (1963), via IMDB.com)
I suspect that hubris contributed to hoaxes like Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor. Someone with runaway self-esteem might believe that nobody else had the brains to see through their forgery.

'Mad scientist' movies are entertainment, and a sort of cautionary tale: like Marlowe's Faustus, and the legend of Daedalus and Icarus. (September 20, 2011)

Cautionary tales can teach useful ideas: like 'trying to do the impossible is a bad idea;' or 'drinking and driving don't mix.'

On the other hand, I wonder if movies like "Island of Lost Souls," "The Fly," and "The Brain That Wouldn't Die," teach that curiosity is bad: particularly when it's scientific curiosity.

Humility: Acknowledging God


Like anything else we do, learning how this universe works involves ethics.

We're supposed to study this creation, and use our knowledge to develop new tools. But we're not supposed to put science, money, noodle recipes, or anything else ahead of God in our priorities. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2112-2114, 2292-2296)

Since I'm a Catholic, I believe that God created and is creating a good and ordered universe. We're made in the image of God, and "called to a personal relationship with God." (Catechism, 299, 301)

Studying this universe is one way to understand more about God, as long as we keep our priorities straight:
"...Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work...."
(Catechism, 299)
Humility, in the Catholic sense, means remembering that God's God: and I'm not.
"HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as 'poverty of spirit' (2546)."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary, H)
Over the centuries, some Catholics have detested science: and denounced Catholics who were scientists.

Others — like Fibonacci, Robert Grosseteste, and Georgius Agricola — introduced Hindu-Arabic numbers to Europe, described controlled experiments and related them to demonstrative science, and launched mineralogy. Then there's Albertus Magnus, patron saint of scientists, and that's another topic. (February 23, 2014)

1. Dinosaurs, Birds, and Scorpions: Tales of Survival



(From David Bonnadonna and Eurekalert.org, via Reuters, used w/o permission.)
("The dinosaur lineage that evolved into birds shrank in body size continuously for 50 million years...."
(Reuters))
"How do you make a bird? Shrink a dinosaur for 50 million years"
Will Dunham, Reuters (August 1, 2014)

"Large flesh-eating dinosaurs evolved into small flying birds, but it did not happen overnight.

"An international team of scientists on Thursday [July 31] described an extraordinary evolutionary process that unfolded over a period of 50 million years in which a lineage of carnivorous dinosaurs shrank steadily and acquired numerous traits that led to the first appearance of birds.

"The researchers, using techniques developed by molecular biologists to reconstruct virus evolution, examined 1,500 anatomical traits in 120 different dinosaurs from the theropod group. These bipedal meat-eaters included giants like Tyrannosaurus rex and Giganotosaurus as well as the lineage that produced birds.

" 'Our study measured the rate of evolution of different groups of theropod dinosaurs,' said lead researcher Michael Lee, a paleontologist at the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Museum.

" 'The fastest-evolving group also happened to be ancestral to birds. So, ultimately, the most adaptable dinosaurs proved to be the best long-term survivors, and surround us today in their feathered splendor,' Lee explained...."
Theopods were dinosaurs that walked on two legs: and almost certainly include the remote ancestors of today's birds. Most were meat-eaters, but some ate plants, insects, or whatever was available.

Although I think it's likely that comparatively rapid change among some theropod dinosaurs helped them survive the Paleogene extinction event, there's more to adaptability than change.

Scorpions, for example, have been around for about 430,000,000 years — and survived the Great Dying, about a quarter of a billion years back. Now, that's durability. I suspect we'll prove to be about as durable, and that's yet another topic. (November 29, 2013)

Getting back to dinosaurs, birds, and all that, the earliest sort-of-a-bird that we know of is still Archaeopteryx. Protoavis may really be "first bird," as its name implies: but paleontologists don't have enough of the critter to be sure, not yet.

Earth's Story: There's More to Learn


Earth looked different, back in Archaeopteryx's day. A critter could walk from what's now South America to Africa, North and South America weren't connected, and shallow seas covered quite a bit of what's now dry land.


(From Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Earth in the Late Jurassic, about 150,000,000 years ago.)

Some fossilized critters lived, or died, in water. The Burgess Shale fossil bed is a famous example. Not all fossils are from muddy water, though. Sauropods like Amphicoelias often lived in semi-arid places.

The point is that paleontologists aren't limited to evidence from one particular environment. Most dead plants and animals get recycled promptly, and do not become fossils. That still leaves scientists with a growing volume of fossils and other physical evidence.

We've come a long way since Nicolas Steno questioned the idea that fossils grow in the ground: but there's still a great deal left to learn.

'Beep! Beep!' Cretaceous Roadrunner



(From Nobu Tamura, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(A velociraptor from what's now Mongolia. The critter may have had a lot more feathers than this.)
"...'What was impressive was the consistency of the size change along the dinosaur-to-bird transition - every descendent was smaller than its ancestor. The lineage was continually pushing the envelope of life at a smaller body size, little by little, over 50 million years," [lead researcher Michael] Lee said.

"The researchers completed a family tree of this dinosaur lineage and their bird descendants. These dinosaurs decreased in size from about 440 pounds (200 kg) to 1.7 pounds (0.8 kg) in 12 discernible steps....

"...The decrease in body size may have helped dinosaurs in the lineage that evolved into birds to take advantage of certain ecological niches that would have been off-limits to their larger relatives and to experiment with unique body shapes.

" 'It would have permitted them to chase insects, climb trees, leap and glide, and eventually develop powered flight,' Lee said...."
(Will Dunham, Reuters)
Velociraptor, one of the more famous theropod dinosaurs, may have had more feathers than that illustration. Even so, it reminds me of real roadrunners, which remind me of the old Road Runner cartoons, which don't have much to do with either paleontology or the various species of geococcyx.

Will Dunham's "...decrease in body size may have helped dinosaurs in the lineage that evolved into birds to take advantage of certain ecological niches..." can — with a little imagination — sound like a claim that some dinosaurs decided to become birds.

That could be the start of a nifty tale of speculative fiction, and that's yet again another topic.

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Dunham was trying to describe what Michael Lee and other scientists are learning about Earth's story in non-technical language.

2. Warm, Fuzzy — Dinosaurs



(From Th. Hubin, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Belgian and Russian researchers discovered an area filled with ancient dinosaur bones in Kulinda, south eastern Siberia"
(BBC News))
" 'Fluffy and feathery' dinosaurs were widespread"
Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (July 24, 2014)

"All dinosaurs were covered with feathers or had the potential to grow feathers, a study suggests.

"The discovery of 150-million-year-old fossils in Siberia indicates that feathers were much more widespread among dinosaurs than previously thought.

"The find 'has completely changed our vision of dinosaurs', the lead researcher told BBC News...."
What's new here is that scientists found feathers on a ornithischian dinosaur. Up to now, the only definite dinosaur feathers had been on theropod dinosaurs.

Oddly enough, ornithischians are beaked dinosaurs with hips similar to today's bird hips. Theropods, the apparent ancestors of birds, have 'lizard hips;' and about a quarter of a million years back, a critter that's built a bit like a mammal had a beak. (December 13, 2013)

The mammal-like critter with a beak was a synapsid, which is another word for theropsid: animals with a particular set of features in the skull and teeth. synapsids or theopsids have been around for a long time, and still are: all mammals are synapsids, including humans.

I could be upset about being made from the stuff of Earth: or be glad that we know more about the 'clay' God used. I prefer reality, and see no problem with learning more about this astounding creation. (December 13, 2013)

Feathers, or Little Streamers, or Something Else



(From Andrey Atuchin, via Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol; used w/o permission.)
(Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus in its lakeside environment.)
"...The creature, called Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus, was about 1m long, with a short snout, long hind legs, short arms, and five strong fingers.

"Its teeth show clear adaptations for chewing plants.

"Until now, fossilized evidence of feathery dinosaurs has come from China and from a meat eating group called theropods.

"The latest discovery, in Russia, is from a completely separate group of plant-eating dinosaurs called ornithischians - which account for half of all dinosaurs....

"...The find takes the origin of feathers millions of years further back in time than had previously been thought, said Dr Pascal Godefroit of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels, Belgium, who led the research....

"...'The fact that feathers have now been discovered in two distinct groups, theropods in China and ornithischians in Russia means that the common ancestor of these species which might have existed 220 million years ago also probably had feathers.'..."
(Pallab Ghosh, BBC News)
Bristol University's Professor Mike Benton says that all dinosaurs probably had feathers when they were young, but not necessarily as adults:
"...'Our research doesn't mean that all dinosaurs had feathers, especially as adults,' he [Professor Benton] told BBC News.

" 'Some will have had feathers as young animals and kept them throughout their lives. Others may have lost feathers as they grew up, and became large enough not to need them, or replaced feathers with scales or relied on bony plates in the skin for protection.'..."
(Pallab Ghosh, BBC News)
This fits the hypothesis that feathers started out as insulation and something dinosaurs used for signalling.

As usual, there's been a lively debate about what these feather-like structures are and what they mean:
"...But Dr Paul Barrett of the Natural History Museum in London, has doubts.

" 'Most feathers have a branching structure,' he told BBC News.

" 'Instead these look like little streamers coming from a central plate. No bird has that structure in any part of its plumage and none of the developmental models that biologists use to understand the evolution of feathers includes a stage that has anything like that kind of anatomy.'..."
(Pallab Ghosh, BBC News)
Dr. Barrett may be right. On the other hand, when evidence doesn't support a particular model: maybe that model needs to be re-examined.

For example, in 1662 René Descartes came up with a model that explained how the Solar system formed. As scientists collected and analyzed more data, they came up with other models: in1734, 1749, 1812, 1854, 1904, 1917, 1937, 1944, 1960, 1962, and 1954. (June 27, 2014)

I'd be astonished, and a bit disappointed, if it turns out that this is the year when we know everything there is to know about the universe.

Getting back to fuzzy dinosaurs, and feathers that don't agree with Dr. Barrett's model: folks at the Natural History Museum in London may be right; X. Xu and Y Guo may be on the right track, with their eight stages of feather evolution; or none of today's explanations are a good fit with reality.

I'm not terribly surprised that none of today's birds have the sort of feathers, or feathery things, that sprouted from Kulindadromeus. Quite a lot can happen in 170,000,000 years: and has.

Fuzzy or feathered dinosaurs, background:

(From Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Earth in the Middle Jurassic, when Kulindadromeus lived near lakes: about 170,000,000 years ago.)

3. Pelagornithids: "Like Creatures out of a Fantasy Novel"



(From Liz Bradford, via Sci-News.com, used w/o permission.)
"Pelagornis sandersi: Paleontologist Discovers Largest-Ever Flying Bird"
Enrico de Lazaro, Sci-News.com (July 8, 2014)

"Pelagornis sandersi – a newly discovered extinct species of bird that lived in what is now North America about 28 million years ago – is the largest flying bird ever found, says Dr Daniel Ksepka, a paleontologist with Bruce Museum in Greenwich, Connecticut.

" 'Pelagornis sandersi could have traveled for extreme distances while crossing ocean waters in search of prey,' explained Dr Ksepka....

"...Pelagornis sandersi belongs to Pelagornithidae, an extinct group of birds known for bony tooth-like beak projections, large size, and highly modified wing bones.

" 'Pelagornithids were like creatures out of a fantasy novel – there is simply nothing like them around today. These giant birds occurred all over the globe for tens of millions of years, but vanished during the Pliocene, just three million years ago. Paleontologists remain uncertain about the cause of their demise,' Dr Ksepka said...."
Someone may say that Pelagornis sandersi never existed: because they aren't like any of today's birds. That wouldn't be the silliest claim ever made.

The Wikipedia page on Pelagornis sandersi cites an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and BBC News, putting the wingspan at between 6.1 and 7.4 meters, or 20 and 24 feet. That's a lot of bird.

These days, the Wandering albatross has the longest avian wingspan: 2.51 to 3.5 meters, or 8 feet 3 inches to 11 feet 6 inches.

Big Birds and Bumblebee Wings



(From Liz Bradford, via Sci-News.com, used w/o permission.)
"...At 6.4 m, the wingspan of this bird was about two times that of the Royal Albatross(Diomedea exulans), the largest living flying bird.

"This wingspan places Pelagornis sandersi above some theoretical upper limits for powered flight in animals, but nonetheless it is clear from the skeleton the bird was a masterful flyer.

"Dr Ksepka estimated the length of the feathers based on the relationship between bone lengths and feather lengths in living birds...."
(Enrico de Lazaro, Sci-News.com)
Depending on who you read, the Royal albatross is either one or two species: the Northern royal albatross and Southern royal albatross. With average wingspans of about 3 meters, or 9.8 feet, they run second to the largest Wandering albatross — but they're still big birds, and about the size of the Wandering albatross.

I'm not terribly surprised that the world's largest — and extinct — bird is bigger than "some theoretical upper limits for powered flight in animals."

When scientists started studying flight at small scales, they found that critters like bumblebees can fly: thanks to the viscosity of air, dynamic stall effects, and asynchronous muscles that vibrate faster than the insect's nerve impulses. And that's — another topic.

More of my take on Earth's unfolding story, and getting a grip:
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 ...
  • 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...
  • 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...

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.