I ran across a brand new blog today called Marriage as a Vocation, which I will definately be keeping an on. MrsDrP is a geologist and her husband is a PhD candidate in paleontology (now doesn't that rock? -- sorry, couldn't help it.) She is also Catholic and three years married, and so thinking about the family vocation.
She has a good post up at the moment in response to Mark's threads of the last few days dealing with evolution versus ID. And who better to bring a little sanity to the debate than a devout Catholic scientist?
Check her out.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Whose Justice
If it hasn't become obvious already, one of the areas that fascinates me is the extreme edge of what is generally considered a constant. That is, after all, how you figure out if absolutes are actually absolute, or just generalities in disguise.
I've been thinking a lot lately about a book I need to pick up a copy of: Tunnel in the Sky, a Heinlein novel that is in my opinion perhaps his best. In the novel, a crowded Earth is colonizing the galaxy using hyperspace gates which can open up a temporary portal between a terminal on earth and the target planet through which you can step, just like doorway or large gate. Whole wagon trains of settlers head out to colonize primitive planets and start new outposts of humanity. The main character is in a survival training class, the final exam of which is to be dropped off on an uninhabited (by humans) planet for a few days -- and survive. However, something goes wrong, and the return gate never opens. The students (a number of classes from different high schools and colleges were dropped at once) that have survived long enough to realize that they've been abandoned set up a self sufficient colony, marry, have children, etc.
What's interesting about the novel is that Heinlein tries to deal thoughtfully with the difficulties of a group of modern men and women used to the rule of law being forced to start from scratch. You can't call the police here, there are no pre-existing laws, and not everyone is intent upon playing nice. Nor is everyone in agreement on how to rule their colony. One student suggests they adopt the Virginia state constitution, another asks what exactly the point would be.
There are a whole host of moral issues that we're used to thinking of in the context of everyone belonging to a clearly acknowledged state. Just a few weeks ago we heard the reading in which Christ told the Pharisees to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Christians are expected to follow just laws and pay their taxes, even when the ruler is as morally dubious as Roman rule in Palestine.
Yet, when does it become morally necessary to pay your taxes? In origin, taxes were essentially protection money extorted by a local strong man who might or might not protect you in time of danger, but would definitely burn down your cottage and steal your daughter if you didn't pay up when the time came. Do petty warlords count as Caesar? Are you obliged to obey their laws?
The American side of me wishes to say "No" that only government to which one consents is lawful. Yet the Jews of Jesus' time clearly did not "consent" live under Roman rule. And yet Jesus advised them to pay taxes and follow the law.
Similarly, private administration of justice of the "I know you did it, so I'm going to punish you myself" type is generally considered synonymous with revenge, and thus wrong. but if there is no other government out there, does private administration of justice become right? Are punishments that an individual or head of household might impose different from those a government might justly use?
Capital punishment springs most readily to mind. In Genesis, God orders that no one kill Cain for his crime, but banishes him. Indeed, many societies that lived in small isolated groups (Greek city states, the Norse, various Native American and African tribes, etc) seem to have used banishment as the ultimate formally imposed penalty, while outright killing might be more a matter of personal revenge. The formula seems to have been: "Go away and never come back. If you're seen here again, we will kill you."
Perhaps, in the same sense that John Paul II argued that capital punishment was no longer necessary for a developed nation with an adequate penal system, it might also be argued that in a society so undeveloped that banishing someone didn't simply mean foisting him on the next township over, capital punishment is also not morally necessary -- except, obviously, when banishment was broken, which might rightly be considered an act of aggression and dealt with accordingly.
Clearly, none of us are likely to be stranded on a primitive planet to start our own civilizations, but these questions also help us look at what exactly justice is.
I've been thinking a lot lately about a book I need to pick up a copy of: Tunnel in the Sky, a Heinlein novel that is in my opinion perhaps his best. In the novel, a crowded Earth is colonizing the galaxy using hyperspace gates which can open up a temporary portal between a terminal on earth and the target planet through which you can step, just like doorway or large gate. Whole wagon trains of settlers head out to colonize primitive planets and start new outposts of humanity. The main character is in a survival training class, the final exam of which is to be dropped off on an uninhabited (by humans) planet for a few days -- and survive. However, something goes wrong, and the return gate never opens. The students (a number of classes from different high schools and colleges were dropped at once) that have survived long enough to realize that they've been abandoned set up a self sufficient colony, marry, have children, etc.
What's interesting about the novel is that Heinlein tries to deal thoughtfully with the difficulties of a group of modern men and women used to the rule of law being forced to start from scratch. You can't call the police here, there are no pre-existing laws, and not everyone is intent upon playing nice. Nor is everyone in agreement on how to rule their colony. One student suggests they adopt the Virginia state constitution, another asks what exactly the point would be.
There are a whole host of moral issues that we're used to thinking of in the context of everyone belonging to a clearly acknowledged state. Just a few weeks ago we heard the reading in which Christ told the Pharisees to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Christians are expected to follow just laws and pay their taxes, even when the ruler is as morally dubious as Roman rule in Palestine.
Yet, when does it become morally necessary to pay your taxes? In origin, taxes were essentially protection money extorted by a local strong man who might or might not protect you in time of danger, but would definitely burn down your cottage and steal your daughter if you didn't pay up when the time came. Do petty warlords count as Caesar? Are you obliged to obey their laws?
The American side of me wishes to say "No" that only government to which one consents is lawful. Yet the Jews of Jesus' time clearly did not "consent" live under Roman rule. And yet Jesus advised them to pay taxes and follow the law.
Similarly, private administration of justice of the "I know you did it, so I'm going to punish you myself" type is generally considered synonymous with revenge, and thus wrong. but if there is no other government out there, does private administration of justice become right? Are punishments that an individual or head of household might impose different from those a government might justly use?
Capital punishment springs most readily to mind. In Genesis, God orders that no one kill Cain for his crime, but banishes him. Indeed, many societies that lived in small isolated groups (Greek city states, the Norse, various Native American and African tribes, etc) seem to have used banishment as the ultimate formally imposed penalty, while outright killing might be more a matter of personal revenge. The formula seems to have been: "Go away and never come back. If you're seen here again, we will kill you."
Perhaps, in the same sense that John Paul II argued that capital punishment was no longer necessary for a developed nation with an adequate penal system, it might also be argued that in a society so undeveloped that banishing someone didn't simply mean foisting him on the next township over, capital punishment is also not morally necessary -- except, obviously, when banishment was broken, which might rightly be considered an act of aggression and dealt with accordingly.
Clearly, none of us are likely to be stranded on a primitive planet to start our own civilizations, but these questions also help us look at what exactly justice is.
Insert your own pun here
Alrighty, here's one that's directly related to both religion and demographics. You've all seen by now the news item about the men in Serbia trying an electrifying new form of birth control: electricity.
If thinking of paternity is frightening,
But contemplating continence inflames you with a rash,
Then come to us, who've tamed and harnessed lightning,
And we will solve your problem with a crackle and a flash.
No unexpected offspring will entrap you
And terminate your lecherous adventures with a crash;
Just drop your pants and we will gladly zap you -
Then find yourself a willing girl and mount her with panache!
With your spermatozoa knocked unconscious
You will not need your prophylactics - throw them in the trash!
Enjoy a sex life active and rambunctious!
(We take all major credit cards, and also checks and cash.)
I thought I couldn't laugh any harder, but Bob the Ape has a little advertising jingle that had me rolling on the floor with tears rolling down my cheeks.Men in Serbia are lining up to have electric shocks delivered to their testicles as part of a new contraceptive treatment.
Serbian fertility expert Dr Sava Bojovic, who runs one of the clinics offering the service, said the small electric shock makes men temporarily infertile by stunning their sperm into a state of immobility.
He said: "We attach electrodes to either side of the testicles and send low electricity currents flowing through them.
"This stuns the sperm, effectively putting them to sleep for up to 10 days, which means couples can have sex without fear of getting pregnant.
"The method does not kill the sperm permanently and it does not affect the patient's health."
Dr Bojovic added patients were now lining up at his fertility clinic in Novi Banovci for the shock treatment, as it had none of the problems attached to using condoms, the male pill or having a vasectomy.
He added: "We are hoping to have a small battery powered version on sale in the shops in time for Xmas."
If thinking of paternity is frightening,
But contemplating continence inflames you with a rash,
Then come to us, who've tamed and harnessed lightning,
And we will solve your problem with a crackle and a flash.
No unexpected offspring will entrap you
And terminate your lecherous adventures with a crash;
Just drop your pants and we will gladly zap you -
Then find yourself a willing girl and mount her with panache!
With your spermatozoa knocked unconscious
You will not need your prophylactics - throw them in the trash!
Enjoy a sex life active and rambunctious!
(We take all major credit cards, and also checks and cash.)
Bad, bad, bad
For those of you who are looking for intelligent, thoughtful commentary on things religious and demographical, I am sorry to disappoint. Unless, of course, you factor in the demographic factors and the lack of religious sensibilities that have produced Nicole Richie's first novel (excerpt here). I'm reminded of the classic phrase from the classic movie "Office Space": "no-talent a** clown. It's bad, bad, bad, and my three-year-old crafts more concise prose than Miss Richie offers.
I wonder if Paris Hilton has a novel in the offing? She already has an illustrious career on film....
I wonder if Paris Hilton has a novel in the offing? She already has an illustrious career on film....
The Wal-Mart Flap
St. Blog's Parish has been alive with the sounds of outrage over a story of a Wal-Mart employee's ignorant email regarding Christmas. Here's the text of the email as found at the urban legends website, www.snopes.com:
Ladies and gentlemen, let us understand the way Big Business works in America. Wal-Mart is uniquely attuned to the fact that its primary support comes from the heartland -- do you honestly suppose it's company policy to insult Christians? Any organization can hire a stupid temp; this won't be the last occasion. Note that said temp has been fired and an apology offered for his careless conduct.
I'm not a lover of Wal-Mart: the stores are aesthetically unpleasing, the atmosphere is lousy, and the big box layout is a blight on the urban landscape. On the other hand, I recall when we were a younger family trying to make it by on a $40/week food budget. Wal-mart helped us stay afloat. There's a place for Wal-Mart in the American economy; if not, they would have gone under by now.
I would have more respect for the Catholic League if it used its clout in a dignified fashion to get to the heart of a matter, rather than issuing prissy calls for boycotts. Even if the small dogs start yapping, we're the camel that's been around for 2000 years and counting. We can wait a week for an apology from Wal-Mart (less than 40 years old) before we start kicking sand around, because we're just that big.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League called for a boycott of Wal-Mart on the grounds of discrimination against Christians:Walmart is a world wide organization and must remain conscious of this. The majority of the world still has different practices other than "christmas" which is an ancient tradition that has its roots in Siberian shamanism. The colors associated with "christmas" red and white are actually a representation of the aminita mascera mushroom. Santa is also borrowed from the Caucuses, mistletoe from the Celts, yule log from the Goths, the time from the Visigoth and the tree from the worship of Baal. It is a wide wide world.
“Yesterday, I announced a boycott of Wal-Mart and asked 126 religious organizations that span seven faith communities to join with us. We want a) an apology for insulting Christians by effectively banning Christmas and b) a withdrawal of its insane statement regarding the origins of Christmas and c) a revision on its website.Snopes contacted Wal-Mart and got this reply:
We at Wal-Mart believe this e-mail between a temporary associate and one of our valued customers was entirely inappropriate. Its contents in no way represent the policies, practices or views of our company. This associate, who was hired less than three weeks ago, is no longer employed by our company. We sincerely apologize to any person or organization that was offended by the inappropriate and inflammatory comments made by this former associate. Wal-Mart is proud to welcome customers of all faith, and celebrants of all holidays. With more than 138 million customers coming through our storesmevery week and a variety of holidays that they celebrate throughout this season, "Happy Holidays" is a pleasant greeting that applies to everyone and every celebration. It's simply our way of wishing our customers a good time with their family and friends during this time of year. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Bill Donohue got the same reply and has called for an end to the boycott.
(emphasis added)
Ladies and gentlemen, let us understand the way Big Business works in America. Wal-Mart is uniquely attuned to the fact that its primary support comes from the heartland -- do you honestly suppose it's company policy to insult Christians? Any organization can hire a stupid temp; this won't be the last occasion. Note that said temp has been fired and an apology offered for his careless conduct.
I'm not a lover of Wal-Mart: the stores are aesthetically unpleasing, the atmosphere is lousy, and the big box layout is a blight on the urban landscape. On the other hand, I recall when we were a younger family trying to make it by on a $40/week food budget. Wal-mart helped us stay afloat. There's a place for Wal-Mart in the American economy; if not, they would have gone under by now.
I would have more respect for the Catholic League if it used its clout in a dignified fashion to get to the heart of a matter, rather than issuing prissy calls for boycotts. Even if the small dogs start yapping, we're the camel that's been around for 2000 years and counting. We can wait a week for an apology from Wal-Mart (less than 40 years old) before we start kicking sand around, because we're just that big.
My Wildest Dreams Come True!
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have received an honor that I never thought was possible: I have been mentioned in an Iowahawk column! I owe it all to Rick Lugari (mad props to him!) for being so charitable as to highlight the recent misbehavior of two cheerleaders. I sent these on to Iowahawk as fodder for his Hoosegow Honey section, and he acknowledged me by my very name:
And, while they are not Iowans, I would also like to award special Honorary Co-Hoosegow Honeys of the Week to two lovely lasses brought to my attention by alert readers Marcus McCain and Cat Hodge: Victoria Thomas and Angely Keathley, the two Carolina Panthers cheerleaders arrested after allegedly getting their mutual freak on in a Tampa nightclub bathroom stall. Sadly, the NFL club terminated their services after the incident, but I have to believe they now have employment opportunities aplenty.I knew I would be famous one day, but I never dreamed it would be like this! Thank you, thank you, Iowahawk! (And Rick Lugari, too. I'll never call you an old goat again.)
Thursday, November 10, 2005
The Catholic Church and Slavery
Dr. David Curp (a professor and good friend from our Stuebenville days now teaching at Ohio University) wrote an article for Crisis a couple months back dealing with the history of the Catholic Church and slavery. (I'd wanted to link to it at the time, but Crisis doesn't put current issues on the web.)
The piece is not so much an apologia for the Church's conduct as regards slavery as an examination of how the Church has regarded slavery over the centuries and why. Critics advocating that the Church change her teaching on some topic or other are always saying, "The Church once endorsed slavery." Some, in their eagerness to defend the Church are apt to go to the other extreme and insist, "The Church has always condemned slavery."
Curp rightly reminds us that the Church has always seen slavery as an evil brought on by man's fallen nature. However, through much of the Church's history her concern was more for the salvation of slaves' souls than for the freedom of their mortal lives. Although slavery had nearly vanished from Christian Europe by the end of the Middle Ages (and even serfdom was gradually becoming more humane) it saw a revival during the struggle against the Turks, during which the Spanish and Portuguese were given permission to traffic in slaves captured in the wars against Islam. (And the which permission the Portuguese and Spanish stretched to enslaving pagan and even Christian natives of lands they encountered, though the latter was expressly condemned by several popes.)
It's a good summary of the history involved and well worth reading.
The piece is not so much an apologia for the Church's conduct as regards slavery as an examination of how the Church has regarded slavery over the centuries and why. Critics advocating that the Church change her teaching on some topic or other are always saying, "The Church once endorsed slavery." Some, in their eagerness to defend the Church are apt to go to the other extreme and insist, "The Church has always condemned slavery."
Curp rightly reminds us that the Church has always seen slavery as an evil brought on by man's fallen nature. However, through much of the Church's history her concern was more for the salvation of slaves' souls than for the freedom of their mortal lives. Although slavery had nearly vanished from Christian Europe by the end of the Middle Ages (and even serfdom was gradually becoming more humane) it saw a revival during the struggle against the Turks, during which the Spanish and Portuguese were given permission to traffic in slaves captured in the wars against Islam. (And the which permission the Portuguese and Spanish stretched to enslaving pagan and even Christian natives of lands they encountered, though the latter was expressly condemned by several popes.)
It's a good summary of the history involved and well worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
