The Ark and The Dove

Techies & Jesus

Go read this great article about a Jesuit astronomer talking about scientists and religion.  I know exactly what he's talking about and have been meaning to discourse on it for a while.  If you don't, you probably know someone who does.

To him, [science and religion both] are a search for truth... “Like religion, science is fundamentally the work of an individual guided by a community,” said Brother Consolmagno.             

[T]here is a “serious misfit,” he said, between the typical techie and the typical church. American churches simply haven’t done much to understand techies and reach out to them in ways that would be meaningful.

Scientists and engineers don’t necessarily lack faith, he said, instead, they appear to be searching for a “comprehensive set of rules to live by,” which provides an opportunity for organized religion. Organized religion provides a template, just like the worked-out problems in a physics book, he said, against which techies can compare their spiritual experiences with those that are certified to have been experiences of the transcendent.             

A-men!  When I was a kid, it was so hard for me to take religious ed seriously because although I realized the Faith was important, they dumbed it down so much that I didn't quite realize that there was much of anything to learn.  Thank God that He put the right books in my hands at the right time that helped me realize how huge, reasonable, beautiful, and wondrous it all is - like the material universe, only better. 

Now I realize that the CCD people at my parish were probably reacting against the perceived fact-memorization overload they remembered from their childhood, and also not everyone is a reading machine eager to learn on a high level, but their narrow-mindedness almost ended up being very harmful to me.  There are so many smart people out there who think religion is dumb because (well, aside from leftover Englightenment propaganda that's part of our intellectual-cultural background, and the pride that's easy to fall prey to when you realize you're smarter than most) they only ever learned about religion as something dumb.

For a later post perhaps, more about this, and my observations on how science and the scientific community could be a preparation for the Gospel (and how science-type people are actually tripped up by not understanding the differences).

Marches in Washington

I couldn't help noticing that when "tens of thousands" of people marched on Washington the other day, they got on page A1 of the Washington Post, not on A10 like the other "tens of thousands" of people march.

I also couldn't help noticing that although they did note that there were many fewer people there than the organizers estimated, and fewer than at previous such events, they didn't search out and find the handful of counterprotesters and devote half the pictures or the tagline to them.

So what do we have to do to get noticed?  We were on the same order of magnitude in terms of number of people.  And we show up year after year with more and more.  Perhaps it's that they have more celebrities at their rallies, but one can't help but wonder if the reason is that the Post thinks one of them is more newsworthy than the other.  Actually I almost feel like cutting them some slack when supposedly pro-life Pres. Bush phones it in every year instead of making even a token appearance.

I've got an idea.  Next year, let's announce that we're calling off the March for Life and that instead we're going to have a march to Protest the Policies of The Administration.  The pro-life organizations can secretly start a front group to sponsor the event with a name like "The Ancient and Mystical Society of Bush Is a Dum-Dum."  Then when they show up with their cameras and notepads, we'll say "Ha ha, fooled you, we're having a pro-life march!"  But then they'd probably get mad and put us on page D37.  Or maybe we could just march on the offices of the Post, so that they couldn't ignore us.  Not to sound like I'm complaining or anything.

Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza's book sees to be causing quite a firestorm on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. He has a column in today's Post that explains why he thinks the attacks have been so vicious. I haven't read his current book, although I really enjoyed "Letters to a Young Conservative" and "What's So Great About America." However, reading the column in today's Post I can't help thinking that he makes a fundamental flaw. And that's assuming that there's only one cause. A common historical fallacy is to argue over "the cause." But in reality decisions usually come about because of the convergence of several factors. Analysis becomes all the more complicated the more people you have to deal with.

Assuming that you extended family get-togethers are the same as mine, you might of heard an elderly relative ruminate on why he or she chose their (often now deceased) spouse. The last time I heard this, my great aunt said that she really like the fancy car her husband drove. Assuming that the reason she gives is in fact the foremost reason in her mind, is it fair to say that is THE reason she married her husband? Presumably there fancier cars owned in DC at that time. If her criteria were only, or even mostly fancy cars then why didn't she go with one of them? Implicit in her argument is a whole host of other criteria that she presumably had: they got along, he was single and interested in her, he was about her age, etc. Obviously if any of those things were missing they wouldn't have gotten married and stayed married.

I think the same thing goes for why Osama bin Laden decided to attack us. If we were an Islamically inspired religious society would he have attacked us? If we had an isolationist foreign policy such as that our government didn't meddle with Middle Eastern politics would he have attacked us? It seems unlikely on both counts. I'd have to read his book to examine the evidence he provides, but I think any search for "the one reason" they hate us is unlikely to produce much fruit.

Although as an aside, my experience is that when looking for "the one reason" the answer is reducible to either sin or grace. Perhaps that's why I don't get paid to write such books.

Spiegel trio

Der Spiegel had three articles today that I thought were worth taking a look at.  That's pretty good for any news site, and I know I've linked to them recently, so they must be on a tear.  I'm hoping people will comment on them rather than take them as exact expressions of my views.

I. The West and Islam: "Hurray, We're Capitulating!" by Henryk Broder. The Europeans' wishful thinking stems from their need to avoid conflicts, coupled with a strong survival instinct. They may perceive reality, but they do so selectively. "The West has values worth defending, doesn't it?"

II. Looking for Monks and Nuns in the New Millennium by Joachim Mohr.  Everyone wants to go visit monasteries, but nobody wants to be a monk or a nun.  Maybe the problem isn't that everyone is so atheist, but that a la carte-style religion is so ingrained even in Catholics.

III. German Sunday Closing Law applies to Scientology by dsl.  Scientology is considered a business, not a religion, under German law (which seems unusually reasonable to me).  City officials thus have found a weapon against the unpopular organization in Germany's strict Sunday-closing laws for businesses.

Death penalty ban?

Lawmakers in Annapolis are proposing a statewide ban on executions.  Gov. O'Malley says it's not part of his agenda, but that if the legislature can work out a bill he'll sign it.

Old Books

An American businessman has acquired the oldest known copy of the Gospel of St. Luke and one of the oldest of St. John and donated it to the pope.  The copy, known as "The Bodmer Papyrus" is estimated to date to about A.D. 200.

St. Francis de Sales on the Universal Call

WHEN God created the world He commanded each tree to bear fruit after its kind; and even so He bids Christians,—the living trees of His Church,—to bring forth fruits of devotion, each one according to his kind and vocation. A different exercise of devotion is required of each—the noble, the artisan, the servant, the prince, the maiden and the wife; and furthermore such practice must be modified according to the strength, the calling, and the duties of each individual. I ask you, my child, would it be fitting that a Bishop should seek to lead the solitary life of a Carthusian? And if the father of a family were as regardless in making provision for the future as a Capucin, if the artisan spent the day in church like a Religious, if the Religious involved himself in all manner of business on his neighbour’s behalf as a Bishop is called upon to do, would not such a devotion be ridiculous, ill-regulated, and intolerable? Nevertheless such a mistake is often made, and the world, which cannot or will not discriminate between real devotion and the indiscretion of those who fancy themselves devout, grumbles and finds fault with devotion, which is really nowise concerned in these errors. No indeed, my child, the devotion which is true hinders nothing, but on the contrary it perfects everything; and that which runs counter to the rightful vocation of any one is, you may be sure, a spurious devotion. Aristotle says that the bee sucks honey from flowers without damaging them, leaving them as whole and fresh as it found them;—but true devotion does better still, for it not only hinders no manner of vocation or duty, but, contrariwise, it adorns and beautifies all. Throw precious s tones into honey, and each will grow more brilliant according to its several colour:—and in like manner everybody fulfils his special calling better when subject to the influence of devotion:—family duties are lighter, married love truer, service to our King more faithful, every kind of occupation more acceptable and better performed where that is the guide. It is an error, nay more, a very heresy, to seek to banish the devout life from the soldier’s guardroom, the mechanic’s workshop, the prince’s court, or the domestic hearth. Of course a purely contemplative devotion, such as is specially proper to the religious and monastic life, cannot be practised in these outer vocations, but there are various other kinds of devotion well-suited to lead those whose calling is secular, along the paths of perfection. ...Be sure that wheresoever our lot is cast we may and must aim at the perfect life.

--Introduction to the Devout Life, Ch. 3

Saints on the saints

A good friend asked me the other day how best to become familiar with the teaching of the Church and to avoid being formed by the agendas of people who have agendas other than getting him to heaven.

I said, well, you can go to the Catechism, and papal writings, but really your reading needs to be heavy on the Saints and Doctors of the Church - they're the gold standard for spiritual writing.

From Mike Aquilina's Fathers of the Church blog, here's St. Thomas More on the subject:

He said [to Henry VIII], “To be plain with your Grace, neither my Lord of Durham, nor my Lord of Bath, though I know them both to be wise, virtuous, and learned, and honourable prelates, nor myself with the rest of your Council, being all your Grace’s own servants, for your manifold benefits daily bestowed on us, so most bounden unto you, be in my judgment meet counsellors for your Grace herein; but if your Grace minds to understand the truth, such counsellors may you have devised, as neither for respect of their own worldly commodity, nor for fear of your princely authority, will be inclined to deceive you.”

To whom he named St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and divers other holy doctors, both Greeks and Latins: and moreover showed him what authority he had gathered out of them, which although the King did not very well like of (as disagreeable to his Grace’s desire), yet were they by Sir Thomas More (who in all his communication with the King in that matter had always most wisely behaved himself) so wisely tempered, that he both presently took them in good part, and oftentimes had thereof conference with him again.

— From The Life of Sir Thomas More by his son-in-law William Roper.

Today (as of writing this) is the Feast of St. Francis de Sales, bishop and Doctor of the Church.  I have two reasons in mind why his writing and intercession might be of particular value for us.  First, because he was particularly effective in persuading Calvinists to come into full communion with the Church, and we are a nation where "everyone is a Calvinist, even the Catholics."  Secondly, and more importantly, St. Francis' biggest theme is that a life of holiness is for everyone, regardless of one's station in life.  It seems kind of cyclical how people get complacent and sink into the assumption that holiness is only or primarily or more for monks, priests, and nuns, forgetting that their vocation is to sanctify the world.  In our day, it has been phrased as the "Universal Call to Holiness" of Vatican II; in the 17th century, it was St. Francis de Sales' Introduction to the Devout Life, a spiritual classic which transcends its era.  I have read portions of this book and I mean to go back and read the whole thing.  You can get a dead-tree edition for $6 and up online or start reading free in your choice of formats from CCEL.

In Honor of the New Semester

Just when you thought it was safe to study the liberal arts...

Rights and responsibilities

Commenter Kevin Jones writes,

Rights language is such a blunt instrument. Isn't there a better way of phrasing the just regulation of such a natural fact of human life?

Well, rights is what we are stuck with right now, for better or for worse.  Many people take the structure of "rights" so much for granted that they can't imagine things being framed any other way.  Some are even appalled upon considering that "rights" as such were not a part of philosophy of law until relatively recently.  They are either offended at the assumed backwardness earlier ages or they use it to argue out of context, as by saying "well, the right to X didn't exist in the medieval period so how can the Church insist on it now?"

I wonder if the "rights-only" scheme didn't come as a reaction toward obligation-type justice (as in, instead of everyone having a "right to life," everyone had the obligation not to kill).

But I digress.  What about the old Roman concept of officium?  The way this was explained to me by my Latin prof, the Romans never thought of "rights" in isolation.  Any privilege or dignity always came with corresponding duties or responsibilities.  Not that they always lived up to this, but this was the way it was supposed to work.  I think you can see this dynamic at work in the way a lot of things work in the Church.  Because it reflects something about reality, it was very natural for the Church to pick up the Roman formulation of it.  Think of the Divine Office, or the priesthood, or any other vocation in the Church - marriage included.  Or think of Uncle Ben in Spiderman.