What is it with me and my fascinations with expensive male pursuits?
First there's straight razors. Not only does a good straight razor (plus strop, plus stone) cost you a good $100 at a minimum, but if time is money then taking 15-20 minutes to shave in the morning is surely expensive. (Especially for non-morning people like me who hate to get out of bed before 7am, but must be at work by 8-8:30.) And yet, how can any red blooded man resist the sheer joy of scraping an incredibly sharp piece of metal next to his jugular vein? I'm sure I can't. When I do come up short of time I fall back on the old-fashioned double-edged safety razor. I keep trying to explain to my wife the thrill of using a badger hair brush and shaving soap, then scraping one-self with an insanely sharp and minimally safe implement, but somehow this joy does not transfer to a woman. I don't know if it's because they shave in the inelegant confines of the shower or what, but women do not seem to have the joy in shaving that we men can experience. (MrsDarwin interjects that she finds the concept of the straight razor cool, just not the concept of using it on herself.)
As if this were not enough self indulgence, I then find myself interested in English handmade shoes. (More here.) Now, in my defense I must say that I have not yet given in to this temptation, but it is certainly a strong one. (And given my habit of owning only one or two pairs at a time and wearing them into the ground, perhaps not a wholly impractical one.)
Then, as if that were not enough, Fidei Defensor gets me reading about surplus military rifles, which in turn has me thinking about all those other necessary things like a reloading bench and such.
All of which, of course, reminds me that I work more than one job and should bloody well stop fooling about and earn some more money to finance all these silly interests. Especially since I have informed MrsDarwin that as soon as she gets the current monkey-in-the-oven popped out she needs to start thinking about producing a Darwin heir so that I will have a son to tutor in the manly arts of shooting things, buying expensive shoes and scraping one's face with sharp metal objects.
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Catholics, Demographics and the GOP
The other day Amy Welborn linked to an article from Commonweal about the shift of Catholic voters to the Republican party. Needless to say, Commonweal is not sure this is a good thing.
The main theme of the article centers around a research paper titled "Strategic Extremism: Why Republicans and Democrats Divide on Religious Values"by a number of Harvard economists headed up by Edward L. Glaeser. (The full test of the paper is available here.) The study notes that while in the past economic/class criteria were some of the best predictors of voting patters, church attendance has become bar-none the most accurate predictor of voting patterns.
Now the interesting thing is, it's a better predictor in states where church attendance is lower, and a less accurate predictor in states where church attendance is higher. What that suggests (to me anyway) is that the less overall societal pressure there is to attend church (and thus the more church attendance becomes evidence of a conscious spiritual and moral choice) the more likely it is that those who choose to go out of their way to attend church will also go out of their way to vote in accordance with certain moral assumptions.
Now, what concerns Commonweal is that Republicans are making strategic use of extreme rhetoric in order to solidify a Catholic and wider Christian voting block with pro-life and pro-family messages without any actual intention of delivering significant changes in that direction. Think of it as a more scientific version of the rant in the movie Bulworth where the Democratic Senator Bulworth, having gone crazy, tells a black church audience, "Of course Democrats don't care about black people. Forty years and what have we done for you?"
Well, yes and no. Bulworth was the product of disillusioned Democratic activists like Warren Beatty who felt that if only the Democratic Party would really care racism and poverty could have been erased (or eased) long ago. A lot of Republican viewers liked the rhetoric from another angle. They thought "No kidding. If the Democrats cared about black people, they wouldn't have perpetuated poverty by destroying the black family with welfare hand outs, free birth control, abortions, drugs, cheap immigrant labor, etc."
I think both sides had a point. Without question, some Democrats have simply exploited the black community (which votes 90% democrat) for easy votes, while ignoring the fact that much of their 'help' does more harm than good. However, that doesn't change the fact that many Democratic activists genuinely care about the black community, but simply haven't been able to help as much as they would like -- one of the main ones being, in my opinion, that many of their remedies don't work.
Commonweal seems quick to assume that Republicans are exploiting the pro-life vote, while in fact caring only about 'pro-rich' economic policy. (How pro-rich can this country be when a family of four that makes 38k a year actually gets money back rather than paying income tax? Of course social security still nails you worse at the low end of the income spectrum...) I don't question that some Republicans are doing precisely that. However, I think a number of Republicans are clearly interested in supporting pro-life, pro-adoption, and pro-family legislation, at least to the extent that the courts will let them. Clearly, it's in the interest of Christian voters to try to support the success of the latter kind of Republican over the former. And if church-going Christian remain a major Republican voting block, it seems likely that over time more and more Republican candidates will be people who hail from that background themselves.
The main theme of the article centers around a research paper titled "Strategic Extremism: Why Republicans and Democrats Divide on Religious Values"by a number of Harvard economists headed up by Edward L. Glaeser. (The full test of the paper is available here.) The study notes that while in the past economic/class criteria were some of the best predictors of voting patters, church attendance has become bar-none the most accurate predictor of voting patterns.
Now the interesting thing is, it's a better predictor in states where church attendance is lower, and a less accurate predictor in states where church attendance is higher. What that suggests (to me anyway) is that the less overall societal pressure there is to attend church (and thus the more church attendance becomes evidence of a conscious spiritual and moral choice) the more likely it is that those who choose to go out of their way to attend church will also go out of their way to vote in accordance with certain moral assumptions.
Now, what concerns Commonweal is that Republicans are making strategic use of extreme rhetoric in order to solidify a Catholic and wider Christian voting block with pro-life and pro-family messages without any actual intention of delivering significant changes in that direction. Think of it as a more scientific version of the rant in the movie Bulworth where the Democratic Senator Bulworth, having gone crazy, tells a black church audience, "Of course Democrats don't care about black people. Forty years and what have we done for you?"
Well, yes and no. Bulworth was the product of disillusioned Democratic activists like Warren Beatty who felt that if only the Democratic Party would really care racism and poverty could have been erased (or eased) long ago. A lot of Republican viewers liked the rhetoric from another angle. They thought "No kidding. If the Democrats cared about black people, they wouldn't have perpetuated poverty by destroying the black family with welfare hand outs, free birth control, abortions, drugs, cheap immigrant labor, etc."
I think both sides had a point. Without question, some Democrats have simply exploited the black community (which votes 90% democrat) for easy votes, while ignoring the fact that much of their 'help' does more harm than good. However, that doesn't change the fact that many Democratic activists genuinely care about the black community, but simply haven't been able to help as much as they would like -- one of the main ones being, in my opinion, that many of their remedies don't work.
Commonweal seems quick to assume that Republicans are exploiting the pro-life vote, while in fact caring only about 'pro-rich' economic policy. (How pro-rich can this country be when a family of four that makes 38k a year actually gets money back rather than paying income tax? Of course social security still nails you worse at the low end of the income spectrum...) I don't question that some Republicans are doing precisely that. However, I think a number of Republicans are clearly interested in supporting pro-life, pro-adoption, and pro-family legislation, at least to the extent that the courts will let them. Clearly, it's in the interest of Christian voters to try to support the success of the latter kind of Republican over the former. And if church-going Christian remain a major Republican voting block, it seems likely that over time more and more Republican candidates will be people who hail from that background themselves.
Style Watch
Speaking of style, here's my favorite sentence of the day, courtesy of Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal:
Public consternation over $3 gasoline will be nothing when folks in northern parts find themselves paying perhaps $600 a month to heat the boxy castles of oak and pine they've been building with Alan Greenspan's cheap money.Gold!
The Mind of Christ
Several people have interesting posts up regarding Anne Rice's new book, Christ the Lord.
Amy Welborn was struck by Rice's reaction to modern biblical scholarship in the afterward.
These are topics I wouldn't even try to come down on, but it sounds like Rice (who, I gather has experienced a re-conversion to the Catholic faith in recent years) has given is a moderately good try and done her best at all times to be faithful to Catholic doctrine.
Amy Welborn was struck by Rice's reaction to modern biblical scholarship in the afterward.
It's fascinating and instructive to see an "outsider" to the field of Scripture scholarship look at it with wide-open, frankly innocent eyes, and be 1)appalled at the shoddy nature of much of what's out there and 2)even more appalled and mystified by the animus some of these scholars have for their subject. In short, she discovered, Many of these scholars who apparently devoted their lives to New Testament scholarship disliked Jesus Christ. Period.Speculative Catholic is struck by the difficult task that Rice has given herself: portraying Jesus as a child while at the same time maintaining his divinity. Honestly, that's what strikes me as making any fictional portrayal of Jesus difficult, and a portrayal of Him as a child doubly so. The question of what Christ's two natures would have felt like from the inside seems totally incomprehensible to me. When Luke speaks of Christ "growing in knowledge and wisdom" what exactly does he mean by that? Did Christ's human nature always understand His divine nature, or did His human nature have to 'learn' about His divine nature?
These are topics I wouldn't even try to come down on, but it sounds like Rice (who, I gather has experienced a re-conversion to the Catholic faith in recent years) has given is a moderately good try and done her best at all times to be faithful to Catholic doctrine.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
Fight or Flight?
Katelyn Sills, the Catholic high school student and blogger whose mother's complaint to Bishop Weigand resulted in the firing of a teachers (of two months tenure) for having worked as a Planned Parenthood "pro-choice escort" at an abortion clinic, has been expelled by Loretto Catholic Girls High School -- as far as anyone can tell, for the offense of having instigated a situation uncomfortable for the school administration.
There's a sense in which this is well within their rights. If it's like most other Catholic schools, they have a clause in their student code of conduct allowing them to expell students who do not live up to the ideals that define their community. And as far as anyone can tell, objecting to a Planned parenthood volunteer working at the school is against their ideals. The existence of 'Catholic' schools which in fact vigorously support ideals diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching is hardly news. However, this does remind me of the dilemma which, at various times and places, I and my parents before me have faced in trying to decide how to deal with Catholic parishes and schools to which we have belonged.
There seem to be pretty much two schools of thought as regards how to deal with one's parish or school. One is the "It's my parish, I'll stay and fix it" school, and the other is the "Life is too short, I'm going to a better parish" school.
As with most things, I take something of a via media stance, but leaning more in the "life is too short" direction. It's all very well to "stay and fight to make things better" but the fact is that if most people don't want things to be the way you think is better, you're setting yourself up for a lot of conflict without any real improvement. (Actually, with parish life, it's probably more a matter of: If 90% of the people really don't care, and the 10% who run everything disagree with you.)
On the other hand, you need to pick your battles. While I have no problem with leaving a parish where the priest likes to re-write the creed or the Eucharistic Prayer on the fly, leaving a parish because it doesn't use a communion rail or some such seems like an over obsession with detail.
I think the choice comes down to: is the parish or school close enough to what you would find acceptable that if you pitch in an help your suggestions stand some sort of chance of being acceptable to others in decision making roles? For example, my wife and I were involved with the RCIA team in out parish back in California. We had differences with some of the retirees who ran the program, but got along with others and with the sister who was over-all in charge. So we stuck it out, tried to quietly push things the direction we thought they should go (Let's actually read some scripture instead of passing out fliers summarizing it. Let's use the catechism to help answer questions rather than saying "Catholics have lots of opinions on that". Let's be conscious of the fact the Church has 2000 years of liturgy and theology behind it and not start every explanation with "back in the bad old days". Etc.) There were some candidates who clearly appreciated that we were one of the voices among the team (and who have remained friends of ours ever since) and others who really didn't care. I think sticking out the controversy and keeping our voice in the conversation was clearly the right thing to do.
In other cases, though, a school or parish is so far down the wrong track (or so uninterested in hearing conflicting opinions) that volunteering isn't an option: you're not wanted. (When my parents and I made a number of doctrinal complaints about how the confirmation program I had gone through worked -- the religious education staff and pastor simply refused to ever speak to us again. Certainly made me glad that I'd waited will after I was confirmed to complain.) At that point, why bother. If you're right and the practice/teaching really is dead wrong, it will probably die out on its own given some time.
I'm not a dedicated parish hopper, but I don't necessarily see there's a great virtue in attending the parish which one geographically belongs to. Indeed, given the easy of transportation, going to a more congenial local parish is probably a good way to alert the hierarchy to your opinions (assuming a significant number of people share them). And even if not, at least you'll belong to a parish which you pretty-much like, and in which you feel comfortable actively participating.
There's a sense in which this is well within their rights. If it's like most other Catholic schools, they have a clause in their student code of conduct allowing them to expell students who do not live up to the ideals that define their community. And as far as anyone can tell, objecting to a Planned parenthood volunteer working at the school is against their ideals. The existence of 'Catholic' schools which in fact vigorously support ideals diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching is hardly news. However, this does remind me of the dilemma which, at various times and places, I and my parents before me have faced in trying to decide how to deal with Catholic parishes and schools to which we have belonged.
There seem to be pretty much two schools of thought as regards how to deal with one's parish or school. One is the "It's my parish, I'll stay and fix it" school, and the other is the "Life is too short, I'm going to a better parish" school.
As with most things, I take something of a via media stance, but leaning more in the "life is too short" direction. It's all very well to "stay and fight to make things better" but the fact is that if most people don't want things to be the way you think is better, you're setting yourself up for a lot of conflict without any real improvement. (Actually, with parish life, it's probably more a matter of: If 90% of the people really don't care, and the 10% who run everything disagree with you.)
On the other hand, you need to pick your battles. While I have no problem with leaving a parish where the priest likes to re-write the creed or the Eucharistic Prayer on the fly, leaving a parish because it doesn't use a communion rail or some such seems like an over obsession with detail.
I think the choice comes down to: is the parish or school close enough to what you would find acceptable that if you pitch in an help your suggestions stand some sort of chance of being acceptable to others in decision making roles? For example, my wife and I were involved with the RCIA team in out parish back in California. We had differences with some of the retirees who ran the program, but got along with others and with the sister who was over-all in charge. So we stuck it out, tried to quietly push things the direction we thought they should go (Let's actually read some scripture instead of passing out fliers summarizing it. Let's use the catechism to help answer questions rather than saying "Catholics have lots of opinions on that". Let's be conscious of the fact the Church has 2000 years of liturgy and theology behind it and not start every explanation with "back in the bad old days". Etc.) There were some candidates who clearly appreciated that we were one of the voices among the team (and who have remained friends of ours ever since) and others who really didn't care. I think sticking out the controversy and keeping our voice in the conversation was clearly the right thing to do.
In other cases, though, a school or parish is so far down the wrong track (or so uninterested in hearing conflicting opinions) that volunteering isn't an option: you're not wanted. (When my parents and I made a number of doctrinal complaints about how the confirmation program I had gone through worked -- the religious education staff and pastor simply refused to ever speak to us again. Certainly made me glad that I'd waited will after I was confirmed to complain.) At that point, why bother. If you're right and the practice/teaching really is dead wrong, it will probably die out on its own given some time.
I'm not a dedicated parish hopper, but I don't necessarily see there's a great virtue in attending the parish which one geographically belongs to. Indeed, given the easy of transportation, going to a more congenial local parish is probably a good way to alert the hierarchy to your opinions (assuming a significant number of people share them). And even if not, at least you'll belong to a parish which you pretty-much like, and in which you feel comfortable actively participating.
The Rhapsodic Theater
Let us now praise one of the world's most famous actors and playwrights: Karol Wojtyla, popularly known as the late Pope John Paul II.
Most Catholics, and anyone who watched the funeral coverage of the Pope, know that in his youth Karol Wojtyla was drawn to the theater and "considered the spoken word and the theater to by my calling...." From an early age he showed great potential on the stage: directing plays; stepping in at the last minute to fill roles; studying elocution and theory under his mentor Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk. Archbishop Adam Saphieha of Krakow was sufficiently impressed by hearing young Karol deliver a speech that he inquired about making a priest out of him. On being told that Karol intended to pursue theatrical studies, he is reported to have replied, "A pity."
In 1941, at the age of 21, Karol Wojtyla founded the Rhapsodic Theater with Kotlarczyk. The Rhapsodic Theater was part of the Polish Cultural Resistance under the German Occupation. In Gift and Mystery, Pope John Paul wrote that "it was essential to keep these theatrical get-togethers secret; otherwise we risked serious punishment from the occupying forces, even deportation to the concentration camps" (11). It is impressive, therefore, to reflect on the prolific activity of the group: over one hundred rehearsals and twenty-two performances of seven plays (Witness to Hope, 65).
The severe conditions under which the group performed made simplicity necessary. Props and set decor were reduced to a few symbolic elements; in such cramped conditions the minimal gestures and movements were crafted so as to underscore the themes and ideas of the play. The Rhapsodists focused not on a traditional performance style but on the underlying "problem" addressed by the author of the play. Since grappling with the main problem took precedence over plot resolution or character development, this new style was ideal for adapting works of literature not originally crafted for the stage. (In 1964, the group even adapted The Divine Comedy, a performance which impressed then-Cardinal Wojtyla.)
However, Karol Wojtyla came to realize that although he and Kotlarczyk considered "the spoken word and the theater to be my calling, ...Our Lord Jesus thought it was the priesthood, and somehow we came to accept this." In Gift and Mystery he reminisced, "I must admit that that whole experience of the theatre left a deep impression on me, even though at a certain point I came to realize that this was not my real vocation" (11). In 1942, after the death of his father, Wojtyla joined the underground seminary of the diocese of Krakow and was ordained in 1946. During his years as a parish priest he continued writing plays in the Rhapsodic style -- his most famous play, The Jeweler's Shop, was written in 1960 while he was the Bishop of Krakow.
His election to the Papacy in 1978 brought him to a larger stage. The results of his early theatrical training influenced his philosophical and theological writings as well as his frequent public appearances. (In Witness to Hope, George Weigel reflected that "a young man who could calmly continue a clandestine appearance of Pan Tadeusz while Nazi megaphones blasted their propaganda through the streets below was likely to be able to handle himself publicly in virtually any dramatic situation.")
To be continued...
My sources include George Weigel's Witness to Hope; Gift and Mystery by Pope John Paul II; Boleslaw Taborski's forward to The Jeweler's Shop; and The Collected Plays and Writings on Theatre by Karol Wojtyla (sadly, out of print; if you have a copy please sell it to me!). Most of the information above is summarized from my senior thesis Toward a New Theatre: A Comparison of the Ideas of Jerzy Grotowski and Karol Wojtyla.
Most Catholics, and anyone who watched the funeral coverage of the Pope, know that in his youth Karol Wojtyla was drawn to the theater and "considered the spoken word and the theater to by my calling...." From an early age he showed great potential on the stage: directing plays; stepping in at the last minute to fill roles; studying elocution and theory under his mentor Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk. Archbishop Adam Saphieha of Krakow was sufficiently impressed by hearing young Karol deliver a speech that he inquired about making a priest out of him. On being told that Karol intended to pursue theatrical studies, he is reported to have replied, "A pity."
In 1941, at the age of 21, Karol Wojtyla founded the Rhapsodic Theater with Kotlarczyk. The Rhapsodic Theater was part of the Polish Cultural Resistance under the German Occupation. In Gift and Mystery, Pope John Paul wrote that "it was essential to keep these theatrical get-togethers secret; otherwise we risked serious punishment from the occupying forces, even deportation to the concentration camps" (11). It is impressive, therefore, to reflect on the prolific activity of the group: over one hundred rehearsals and twenty-two performances of seven plays (Witness to Hope, 65).
The severe conditions under which the group performed made simplicity necessary. Props and set decor were reduced to a few symbolic elements; in such cramped conditions the minimal gestures and movements were crafted so as to underscore the themes and ideas of the play. The Rhapsodists focused not on a traditional performance style but on the underlying "problem" addressed by the author of the play. Since grappling with the main problem took precedence over plot resolution or character development, this new style was ideal for adapting works of literature not originally crafted for the stage. (In 1964, the group even adapted The Divine Comedy, a performance which impressed then-Cardinal Wojtyla.)
However, Karol Wojtyla came to realize that although he and Kotlarczyk considered "the spoken word and the theater to be my calling, ...Our Lord Jesus thought it was the priesthood, and somehow we came to accept this." In Gift and Mystery he reminisced, "I must admit that that whole experience of the theatre left a deep impression on me, even though at a certain point I came to realize that this was not my real vocation" (11). In 1942, after the death of his father, Wojtyla joined the underground seminary of the diocese of Krakow and was ordained in 1946. During his years as a parish priest he continued writing plays in the Rhapsodic style -- his most famous play, The Jeweler's Shop, was written in 1960 while he was the Bishop of Krakow.
His election to the Papacy in 1978 brought him to a larger stage. The results of his early theatrical training influenced his philosophical and theological writings as well as his frequent public appearances. (In Witness to Hope, George Weigel reflected that "a young man who could calmly continue a clandestine appearance of Pan Tadeusz while Nazi megaphones blasted their propaganda through the streets below was likely to be able to handle himself publicly in virtually any dramatic situation.")
To be continued...
My sources include George Weigel's Witness to Hope; Gift and Mystery by Pope John Paul II; Boleslaw Taborski's forward to The Jeweler's Shop; and The Collected Plays and Writings on Theatre by Karol Wojtyla (sadly, out of print; if you have a copy please sell it to me!). Most of the information above is summarized from my senior thesis Toward a New Theatre: A Comparison of the Ideas of Jerzy Grotowski and Karol Wojtyla.
All Saints Day
Several days ago, Flos Carmeli had a post up about praying Hitler out of purgatory. On All Saints Day (or perhaps more appropriately, tomorrow on All Souls Day) this seems like an apt subject to contemplate. How willing are we to pray for the souls of those who have done evil -- particularly when it affects us personally?
Several years ago, someone who had grievously wronged a member of my family decades ago died. I have no idea in what state of mind this person died or how much thought or sorrow was directed toward an ancient sin. The thought of asking God for mercy for this soul is odious to me, especially as the consequences of the action are still resonating even now.
It is truly horrible, however, that I, who know God's love and am well-formed in the faith, should wish that anyone would spend eternity in hell, eternally separated from God. This is serious matter, not to be trifled with. My own sins are, in the purely human sense, far less consequential, yet perhaps my sin is greater in the eyes of God because my knowledge is greater. Should I wish for God's wrath on myself for wronging him so much that reparation could only be made by the death of His Son?
Pray for me that tonight at Mass I might be able to commend this soul, and my own, to God's unfathomable mercy.
Several years ago, someone who had grievously wronged a member of my family decades ago died. I have no idea in what state of mind this person died or how much thought or sorrow was directed toward an ancient sin. The thought of asking God for mercy for this soul is odious to me, especially as the consequences of the action are still resonating even now.
It is truly horrible, however, that I, who know God's love and am well-formed in the faith, should wish that anyone would spend eternity in hell, eternally separated from God. This is serious matter, not to be trifled with. My own sins are, in the purely human sense, far less consequential, yet perhaps my sin is greater in the eyes of God because my knowledge is greater. Should I wish for God's wrath on myself for wronging him so much that reparation could only be made by the death of His Son?
Pray for me that tonight at Mass I might be able to commend this soul, and my own, to God's unfathomable mercy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
