The Ark and The Dove

The Lamb's Supper

I'm married.

Holy moley.

Reflections on Solitude

With a mere seven days to go until I'm married, I thought it would be worth taking a look back at how I spent my final year of bachelorhood.

I'd say it was pretty much wasted.

Ideally, this should have been a time of great productivity. The summer, in particular, should have brought a rich harvest of my labors. Alone, isolated, with absolutely no social life at all to speak of -- I should have been able to read more, write more, and even goof off more than any other time of my life.

Somehow that didn't quite work out. Don't get me wrong. I did plenty of work...but not as much as I would have if I were an inspired genius. I have a stack of unfinished projects pathetically piling up on my imaginary to-do-list.

Perhaps the most striking phenomenon of isolation that I observed was how unstoppably fast time seems to go when you are not have fun--especially when school was out. For instance, I can't tell you on what day I accomplished any given task this week. I feel as though I skipped from Monday morning to Friday night. It's alarming. Any individual day (and I can really only use this one as an example) seemed to only start around 4 PM -- but by then, I'm thinking about dinner, and then winding down for the evening. Goodness knows I don't have anything interesting planned for the evening.

I feel like a retired widower pretty much just waiting for the grim reaper to show up at the door. I may well have ennui.

While living in quasi-hermitage, I've developed a horrible knack for making awkward chit-chat with store clerks. I'm pretty sure I'm known as "that guy" at every coffee-shop and sandwich place in a twenty-mile radius. And I pretty much only go to such places just to be have other people around...you know...in case one of them might actually make the mistake of talking to me.

It might not be so bad if I was hermit living out in a desert, apart from society. The most torturous thing is, perhaps, seeing oneself surrounded by families, couples, people, and having to slink about, almost suspiciously, by oneself. It's enough to turn one into a Grinch...or a Grendel. (Okay, now I have to go write an Anglo-saxon version of the Grinch where Beowulf rips his arms off as he tries to steal a Christmas tree...)

I've also developed habits like: not closing doors while I use the bathroom, leaving my worn socks next to my bed until there are enough of them to warrant a trip to the hamper, taking my clothes straight out of the dryer rather than putting them in drawers, staring out my window for minutes on end, and speaking in strange tongues while walking around the house. It's not even a matter of talking to myself...I've managed to start talking to myself in nonsense words that I don't even understand. I'm sure there are other awful habits that Isabel will discover in the coming months.

It makes me understand more fully the importance of religious forming communities, and why Jesus made sure to send the apostles out in pairs. I used to think it was more of a matter of keeping them honest...but I think it might have been just to keep them from going crazy. Which brings me to my final reflection for the moment, which is how this year of solitude has made me appreciate more fully the nightmare world that many of our elderly must be living in today. There was a time when I thought retirement seemed like a pretty sweet deal. Now, it seems like being lost at sea.

Snow White as Christian Allegory?

I'm getting old. I can't remember anymore whether I've already read the things I think or if I'm making it up on my own. In any event, I was idly following Isabel around in a card shop the other day, when it struck me that the popular version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves could easily be read as a Christian allegory.

First, up -- the witch is Satan. It actually is not that far-fetched for medieval audiences to conceive of Lucifer as a woman, particularly a sorceress. For evidence, just look up the Tale of Sir Percivale in Malory. Percivale is almost seduced by a beautiful witch who turns out later to have been the devil in disguise.

In Snow White, our protagonist is sent into hiding because of the intense jealousy that the witch has for human heroine. The witch had been the fairest of them all (just as Lucifer had been the fairest of the angels), until Snow White shows up. This reads rather like Satan's jealousy that God will choose humanity over the angels.

Also keep in mind that Snow White is an image of purity and innocence -- like our first parents.
To destroy Snow White, the witch will give her poisoned fruit (a la the Tree of Knowledge) that causes her to sleep (death) until awakened by the loving kiss of Prince Charming (Christ) causing her to reawaken (the resurrection).

Fair enough. It's actually something of a classic narrative archetype. No big surprises there.

But what to do with those seven dwarves?

Well, there is that number seven...which could be a holy number...or it could stand for the seven deadly sins.

There might even be a taint of this meaning left in the Disney version. Consider the state of affairs for the Dwarves when Snow White arrives. The live in squalor and filth. They live in complete disorder with little more purpose in life than to plunder mines for wealth. The association between dwarves and mining is hardly new either -- it goes as far back as Scandinavian mythology. Dwarves are creatures of the earth--they represent physicality and physical nature. Thus, it is only appropriate that they each represent a physical vice. Indeed, even Disney conveys a certain element of this in the characterization of the Dwarves. Grumpy is practically a Spenserian figure for Wrath as Sleepy for Sloth. Dopey might not be a deadly sin, but he certainly embodies human ignorance while Sneezy stands for sickness. I'll readily concede that Bashful, Doc, and Happy disrupt my otherwise beautiful analysis, but I'm going to blame that on Disney. I'm sure I could turn Doc into Pride (he's got to be the smartest, right?), Bashful into Envy (he wants what he can't get because he's too shy), and Happy into Lust (he's always "happyn," nudge, nudge, wink, wink) if I really wanted to, but I don't think we need to go there.)

Snow White (purity) brings order and cleanliness to the Seven Dwarves. It's an allegory of the struggle between purity and vice, where purity wins out and even transforms vices into virtues.

Gratuitous Atheism

Via BBspot...

A Blog called the The Daily Galaxy posted a piece on recent studies of Thermodynamics where simulation models suggest that life is "hardwired" into the Universe. Essentially, the argument is that the Universe is structured in such a way that life as we know it is practically unavoidable.

They also match those in simulations of early Earth, and most critically, those simulations were performed by other people.  The implications are staggering: good news for anyone worried about how we're alone, and bad news for anyone who demands some kind of "Designer" to put life together - it seems that physics can assemble the organic jigsaw all by itself, thank you very much, and has probably done so throughout space since the beginning of everything.

I can understand the how this is bad news for someone who subscribes to "official" Intelligent Design -- the idea that life is too complex to arise on its own. Intelligent Design (as I've mentioned before) tries to argue that life still required special creation since (as it argues) the chances of its self-origination are beyond astronomical. Personally, I find Intelligent Design's arguments to be highly specious (and so does the pope, from what I understand).

But I also find it logically staggering that the idea of the universe being "hardwired" for life would somehow be proof of the non-existence of God. To a scientist, I understand how this allows him to operate with a God in the equation. A God is not necessary, therefore we can explain nature without resorting to supernatural explanations. And, really, we shouldn't want scientists to use God to explain nature. We don't look at God to figure out how the universe works...that's backwards, and it puts the universe front and center, with God merely being supporting cast.
We are supposed to look at the universe to understand how God works.

This is also why, logically, religion can't be completely eliminated by science.

If I ask you "What kind of God would make a universe this way?", you will always be able to come up with an answer. It might not be the right answer, but it is always possible. It is impossible to disprove or prove the existence of God based on laws of physics.

Still...the idea that the universe seems "hardwired" for life tempts me to think that the universe's purpose is the creation of life. Science doesn't do well with the idea of purpose, though. Modern science is all about happy coincidence. We benefit from the dumbluck that the universe simply must generate life. It would be silly to think that perhaps the universe is supposed to create life...because, you know, it was programmed to do that.

There really isn't anything God could do to prove His existence other than reveal Himself in His full glory...but by then it will be Game Over.

Abortion Reduction Isn't Really Pro-Life

In articles covering Obama's meeting with the pope, much has been made of Obama's commitment to reduce the number of abortions. Take this passage from a Reuters piece:

President Barack Obama promised Pope Benedict on Friday that he would do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, the Vatican said.

It sounds like a reasonable compromise position, right?
But what about the phrase "do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions?"
Is this really what the pro-life movement sees as the best direction for compromise?

Obviously, pro-lifers want the number of abortions reduced -- but a truly pro-life ideology is focused on the method of reducing abortions, not just the end numbers.

It's not just that we want to live in a society with fewer abortions overall -- we want a society that finds the very idea of an abortion so repugnant that it is not even a considerable option.

Let's consider some ways in which we might reduce the number of abortions without necessarily improving our society:

It's a pretty safe bet that the primary method of reducing abortions will most likely be artificial contraception. I've seen NARAL speakers try to publicly embarrass Catholic pro-lifer debaters by getting them hung up on the Church's views on the subject. Obama can appear to offer a compromising olive branch that he knows many pro-lifers will have to refuse. The egg will then appear to be on our face for being uncompromising, and people who are afraid to give up their artificial birth control will prefer to make the pro-choice compromise.

The problem with contraception is that it perpetuates the social attitudes that make abortion seem attractive. It separates sexuality from reproduction and it encourages partners to see each other as toys rather than people. You all know this already.

Perhaps another way to think of the issue is this:
If couples would have had an abortion if they had gotten pregnant are only avoiding abortion because they aren't getting pregnant, then they are still in a morally dangerous state. Our relationship with God isn't quite the same as our relationship with the law. I can't be arrested (thank goodness) for being willing to steal an ipod unless I actually make the attempt to steal it.
Jesus as explained to us, however, that God isn't quite so litigious -- we sin when we consciously, willingly, and unjudgmentally indulging a fantasy to sin. For God, unlike Yoda, it isn't a simple matter of doing or not doing. Our relationship with God is grounded as well in what we would be willing to do or what we would be desirous to do. Obviously, this isn't the same thing as temptation. That I am tempted to steal the ipod is not the same as being willing to steal the ipod if the chance came up. That is, I can feel a desire to steal, but there's another level to it -- one can desire or not desire to have that desire (and at this point I'm pretty sure I'm plagiarizing an article I just read on indulgences and detachment from sin).

For God, our desire to desire something that is illicit is itself an illicit desire and takes us away from him. It's kind of the reverse of Baptism by Desire. If we hope for God's mercy for those who would have followed him if they could have, then it seems logical that we must fear for the state of souls whose faith is without works--who merely avoid committing grave deeds because they are not given the opportunity.

I'm not saying that anyone who would have had an abortion given the opportunity is necessarily in a state of mortal sin. Still, if we agree to a compromise position -- if we promote a society that still puts some people in a position where they think abortion is an option, then we still bear responsibility for those people's choices. We'd still be promoting a culture of dehumanization and death -- we'd just be promoting a Culture of Death Lite. I'm not sure how well that will go over at our judgment.

Imagine you were on a jury hearing the trial of a terrorist/Nazi/orc/Sith Lord(choose your favorite proverbial bad guy) who was responsible for a truly heinous attacking resulting in 1,000,000 deaths. What kind of punishment should he receive?

Now, imagine it came out in the trial that his superiors initially planned the extermination of 2,000,000 people, but he was able to talk them down to 1,000,000. Are you going to lessen his punishment by half?

Should serial killers start using this plea? "Well, your honor, if you knew how many more people I could have killed but chose not to, you wouldn't be passing such a harsh judgment."

Let's try another scenario. Let's imagine that we haven't captured the bad guy. Some Islamic terrorist group is launching wave after wave of attacks, killing hundreds of people. Elections come up and a presidential candidate promises he will do everything possible to reduce the number of deaths from terrorist attacks. Upon election, he swiftly instates sharia law, and the number of terrorist attacks drop to almost zero.

He reduced the number of deaths, but would the society be better off?

My Spacebar Is Now Stuck in My Head...

after repeatedly banging...

Drudge linked to a Newsweek article with the following statement:

In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists.

The page header for the article provocatively reads "Is Obama More Catholic than the Pope?"

I face this problem with adjectives all the time, and it's something of a curse within academic fields. In secular, anthropological terminology, reporters get confused by how they should use the adjective "Catholic." The article would seem to favor an interpretation in which the word "Catholic" describes some kind of collective, majority viewpoint among people identifying themselves as "Catholic." If most Catholics think X, then X must be a "Catholic" trait.

The problem is, of course, that when these Catholics think X, they aren't necessarily thinking it as Catholics. They are most likely thinking X as Americans, or as materialists, or as confused individuals.

This is an understandable enough definition if, say, you are trying to cordon off a field of study based on identity politics. You can waste whole classes just by asking students to try to determine where we should make distinctions between British and American literature, or what makes a feminist author, or whether there is such a thing as a gay text as opposed to a straight text. The reason this takes so much time is that there is no real authority to determine any of these cultural boundaries.

Not so with the Church. There is an authority to determine "mere Catholicism" if you will...but the problem here becomes tautological. People can't recognize the authority because they don't recognize the authority. Or is it that the don't because they can't?

I suddenly feel like I'm about to be launched into a Jim Henson skit...

UPDATE: I actually hadn't finished reading the article when I made this post. I just finished the article, and I can tell you that keys Z-M and the entire numpad are now permanently imbedded in my face. I'm sorry, Isabel, I think I just ruined our wedding pictures.

Here's perhaps the most aggravating line of the whole article:

That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.

I'm sorry...just copying and pasting that has brought up some bile in my throat...I'm going to have to excuse myself from the computer...

Anti-Bachelorette Party

Isabel is currently down in MD having her Bachelorette Party...

So what will it be for me tonight then?

Star Wars movie marathon?
All-night gaming session?
Making a tent out of my bedsheets and reading comic books till the morning birds sing?

But first...dinner...maybe I'll make it a special occasion and get a whole footlong at Subway with extra pickles...

Introducing My New Auto-phobia!

This post is can probably be categorized under TMI.

Iran? Hello?

Is it just me or did the potential revolution in Iran suddenly disappear from the headlines once Michael Jackson died?

Sometimes it seems as though journalists are like undergraduates who fixate so much on the plot holes in a Shakespearean play that they completely miss what the play is really about...

-5 Charisma Modifier

I just read that the Presidential Approval Index has slipped to -5% (32% approve, 37% disapprove).

Now if the President has a -5% index when most of the media is in his pocket, can you imagine what his index would look like if journalists actually started reporting on him in a less slavish way?