January 2008 Archives

News of the Weird reports:

Egypt's competitive spirit, combined with a recent surge in piety as some in the Middle East strengthen their commitment to Islam, have led many men to suddenly sport dark calluses on their foreheads ("raisins") as a signal of perhaps-overenthusiastic daily praying. The five prayers require, in all, 34 contacts with the ground (of forehead and nose), and additional personal prayers add to the total, according to a December New York Times dispatch from Cairo. Rumors persist that some men use sandpaper to darken the calluses to appear even more pious. [New York Times, 12-18-07]

This of course is reminiscent of the Gospels, when Jesus castigated those who made a show of their religion — going about unwashed with long faces while fasting, making wide phylacteries, praying in public, and so forth. This appeals to pride and risks going from genuine piety to an attempt to outdo everyone else. Look what it says — some people are using sandpaper to fake their piety! How pathetic is that? (Of course even the Pharisees faked piety, just in different ways.)

We have to examine ourselves to be sure that we aren't falling into the same pitfall. What they are doing seems so unreasonable, so laughable, but we are not immune to it. Do we go to church on Sunday but neglect our devotion to God the rest of the week? Do we argue that we are good churchgoers and think that is adequate, without "commending ourselves and our whole life to Christ our God" (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)? Do we go to church and fight to get out of the parking lot on the way out? (Talk about missing the point!) Jesus' point was that we must have the interior disposition first, and the signs should follow that and be properly motivated.

True religion doesn't come from following the rituals, but from following Christ and letting the rituals follow — just as you're not going to develop a true love and meaningful relationship with a person of the opposite sex merely by engaging in acts of affection; there has to be an genuine love behind those acts. Then the acts of affection naturally flow from that love. So should it be with acts of religion, whether Muslim prostrations, Jewish fasting, or the rituals of the liturgy.

News of the Weird reports:

Writer David Farley said he is investigating the 1983 disappearance of the "Holy Prepuce," which is a patch of the foreskin of Jesus and supposedly was the only body part he might have left on Earth. Until it went missing, it was the centerpiece of each January's Feast of the Holy Circumcision at the Church of the Most Holy Name of Jesus in Calcata, Italy. Several theories persist about its disappearance, the most enduring of which is that it was swiped on orders from the Vatican, which was troubled by the attention it had historically received, according to a December Religion News Service dispatch. [Star Tribune (Minneapolis), 12-7-07]

Hmmm, do you really think Joseph and Mary saved it? I'm not sure what Jews do with the skin, to be honest. Kat? I had never heard of this tradition before (and I suppose it's just as well). This would be the first I've ever heard of the Vatican potentially pilfering a relic to suppress devotion to it.

Which reminds me, I wonder if anyone claims to have Jesus' hair.

News of the Weird reports that of some deaf parents desire 'to create deaf children (and deny them subsequent sound-creating implant surgery, to assure that their kids are raised with the benefits of the deaf lifestyle and support of the "deaf community")'. Fortunately, the article also reports that in the U.K., a pending bill 'would prevent embryo-screening couples from creating "designer" babies, but the British Deaf Association is campaigning for an exception to allow deaf parents to choose specific embryos more likely to yield deaf children.'

This is one problem that arises when you allow "designer" babies (which of course are enabled by in-vitro fertilization). What's unclear to me is whether we're talking about deliberately inflicting deafness on an otherwise-healthy embryo, or simply selecting for implantation embryos that are naturally deaf. The former case is frightening. Can you imagine growing up deaf only to discover that your parents caused your deafness just so you'd be more like them? I know I'd be royally pissed. But I didn't know they could do that with human beings. I'd have to research this some more before drawing further conclusions.

Seems to me there are special problems to growing up deaf with deaf parents. Not only are you deaf, but you don't have your parents to help you deal with the hearing world. Of course I suppose some would argue that deaf people must learn independence from the get-go and so shouldn't rely on hearing parents to help them interact with the hearing world. (To which my response would be, cut them some slack and give them a chance to develop; we don't expect kids to be independent from birth in other areas, why in this one?)

Anyway to me this fundamentally seems to be a case of selfishness: I want my child to be like me, nice and comfortable, to the point of depriving them of some significant good. Sure, all of us beam with pride when our kids turn out like us in some way, such as appearance or personality or what have you. But if you could change that ... would you? Would you maybe clone yourself if you could? Worse, would you inflict a malady you suffer from (if I may be so bold as to call deafness a malady) on them for the sake of fellowship in those sufferings? Seems to me a "normal" parent would want to have their kid better off than them.

Of course I may be underestimating the attitude deaf community. Wasn't there a riot at a deaf university a year or two ago when they appointed a non-deaf president, who ultimately had to step down? As I understandness, deafness has become a culture, a lifestyle, almost like an ethnicity, where deafness is revered, not reviled. Think the homosexual movements: What was once abnormal is now considered a badge of pride. I haven't studied this in a while but this is my recollection from reading the articles some time ago on the deaf university.

If they ever find a homosexuality gene, you can be sure homosexuals will be doing the same thing.

I think deaf parents who want deaf children would be better off adopting them.

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article* today which I found somewhat entertaining about Protestant churches that take a hard line, disciplining members, even to the extent of banning them or exposing their sins to the congregation. I say "entertaining" because one incident involved a little old lady, who was the perfectly righteous churchgoer. The pastor called 911 to have removed from the church simply because she showed up after receiving a letter banning her from the church. Her grievous offense? She called the pastor on the fact that he wasn't following church bylaws in appointing a panel of deacons as a check his power. The court, surprisingly if you ask me, ruled that she could attend the church, and after the pastor called out the state troopers a few times, the judge instructed them only to respond and arrest her if she was causing a disturbance.

What I'd say to those members of the congregation who supported the pastor is, was Jesus right in pointing out the sin of the scribes and Pharisees? Was he right in opposing them? How about the prophets of old who accused the leaders of Israel of sin? Just because they are leaders doesn't mean that they are above reproach. You should obey them, as Jesus taught, but that doesn't prevent you from pointing out injustice.

Some people in these churches are disciplined for flagrant sin, such as adultery; others are disciplined, as this woman was, because they disagree with the pastor. As for banning, I don't believe in banning people from church services; why deprive them of the gospel?

Shunning is another form of punishment. While there is a biblical basis for it, it can get rather cultish. As far as I know there is no tradition for de jure ostracism in Catholicism but I could be wrong.

Regardless of how one feels about that, there is no denying that the Catholic Church has become rather lax in disciplining those in error in recent years. Some would argue that this is a good thing. While I'd admit there were abuses in the past I think we've swung too far in the other direction and some discipline would be good. This however would be hard; the only effective form of discipline we have is denying communion, and with extraordinary ministers of holy communion, you can't really ask them to make those calls or know who is under discipline and who isn't. I suppose we also have the ability to depose or bar people from their positions, i.e. tell them they can't be EMHCs or lectors or CCD teachers or what have you. That would also be effective.

*Available until around 1/25/8.

There was an interesting article in the New York Times about science, psychology, and morality. It's a long one (eight pages) and I haven't finished it yet, but it seems fairly reasonable and not aggressively anti-religious, and even says a few positive things from a religious perspective. Give it a look.

For the first time since the Second Vatican Council, the Pope celebrated the liturgy cum populo, with the people, instead of against the people (versus populo). In other words, he celebrated facing a wall altar rather than facing the people at a freestanding one.

Note what I am careful not to say. (See the article headline for the term I am not using.) Ah, the power of language to change what people think.

At my church we celebrate in this fashion (although we do have a freestanding altar) and I have come to prefer it because it has a sense of the priest leading us in worship, being a fellow-worshipper, and not a cynosure. I think priests and ministers that face the congregation draw too much attention to themselves. It's a distraction, to be blunt.

This was especially brought home when I was a "praise leader" for a prayer meeting once. I hated facing the assembly because it felt awkward to worship. I wasn't worshiping them, after all. I'd rather either face an icon or crucifix (not to worship it of course but as a way to focus myself), or face dead air. Anything but a sea of faces.

I think the Pope understands this. In any case he is on the record regretting the turning of the altars around and seems to be trying to effect slow change in this area. Good for him, I say.

Here are some optimistic folks. City officials in St. Charles Mo. want to ban swearing, table-dancing, drinking contests and profane music in bars. That's a tall order and some are challenging its constitutionality.

With all the hubbub over global warming, one wonders why the media is curiously silent about an issue that may be a much more immanent — and catastrophic — threat. The term is "Peak Oil" and essentially refers to that time when we'll run out of oil. (Technically it's not running out so much as reaching an absolute peak of oil production followed by a point if diminishing returns.) Some people claim it could happen any year now (or already has); others predict it won't happen for another twenty years. What's clear is that the world supply of oil is strained (chiefly by guess who) and will eventually be exhausted, and we don't know for sure when that will be, but it could be in our lifetimes. And that our society will suffer a serious — perhaps mortal — blow when it happens.

Basically what we're talking about is almost rolling back the industrial age. Well, not exactly — there is still biodiesel, which with a little bit of research may keep the trucks and cars running (if you have a diesel car).

No more plastic, by the way, either — it comes from oil. Those plastic utensils you've been using for lunch at work every day when you could have been using metal? Probably will be worth more than the metal ones. All those plastic bottles for holding New York tap water you willingly paid exorbitant prices for (the water, not the plastic) — you're gonna wish you kept them all. Everything that is made with plastic today, which is most items, will have to be designed without it. And that will be expensive.

Wikipedia has a sobering thought: "Liberal estimations of peak production forecast a peak will happen in the 2020s or 2030s and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.

"Conservative predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that the peak has already occurred or will occur shortly and, as proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, predict a global depression, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market which might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization."

The problem, as I intimated earlier, is that societies are not preparing for this moment, chiefly by developing technology that will serve us when that moment comes, and also by making judicious use of the resources we are using. There is a certain amount of bootstrapping that will need to be done to enjoy at least some of our way of life. For example, if we build nuclear power plants now, we'll have electricity. You can't build a nuclear power plant without oil though, so when you're out of oil, it's too late. Guess you can't well build much of anything large without oil, I suppose.

My only hope is that when this happens (and it will happen, eventually) it will happen slowly enough to allow us to adjust according to market forces. The worst thing that would happen is for the oil to just stop with little warning. That's unlikely to happen but the more tapering off, the better.

I'll be curious to hear what Gary has to say on this subject. :-)

A short article discusses how youth can learn moral lessons from playing soccer. "The sport of [soccer] can be a vehicle of education for the values of honesty, solidarity and fraternity, especially for the younger generation," the pope said. "[Soccer] should increasingly become a tool for the teaching of life's ethical and spiritual values." This is part of the holistic approach to Christianity where there is no compartmentalization between what is sacred and profane in our lives, and everything can serve as a microcosm of the spiritual life. So many Catholics confine their spiritual lives to one hour a week — this is obviously not how Jesus wanted us to live. He wanted us to live the faith 168 hours a week, 24x7. Every aspect of our lives should be imbued with the Gospel.

According to News of the Weird:

Leading Economic Indicator: Evangelical Christians, among all people of faith, seem excited to purchase products that reinforce their religious values, according to a marketer cited in a December Denver Post report, with the result an explosion of Jesus-themed merchandise such as Jesus riding a bull, surfing and playing soccer, Jesus air-fresheners and Grapes of Galilee wine. (Among the tackier products, according to a November report in London's Daily Telegraph, are "thongs of praise" underwear with an image of the Madonna and child, and a template to place on a bread slice in an oven to create toast with the Virgin Mary's likeness.) [Denver Post, 12-22-07; Daily Telegraph (London), 11-25-07]

Not that I think Catholics are above this. In fact we are usually below.

I ran across this piece of kitsch today. For the visually impaired, it's a plastic cross that lights up in four different neon colors. I can only be thankful that it wasn't being sold on a Catholic site or as a specifically Catholic item. Nice to know we don't have a corner on devotional kitsch. Reminds me of the glow-in-the-dark statues I've seen.

A new book from the National Academy for the Sciences explains to laypeople why science and religion do not conflict, and evolution does not disprove the existence of God.

The book is aimed at defusing the tension between religion and science, and in that regard, I consider it welcome. So long there has been hostility of scientists toward religion (and, granted, the reverse as well) that it has only inflamed passions. That scientists are making an effort to counter that is exciting news.

Newsweek had a somewhat refreshing article on the topic of global warming. Their message: We have to learn to adapt to global warming. I agree, because there is nothing we can do about it in the short term (and hasn't been since it concept first surfaced). Anything we can do is just like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. (Not that I think we're doomed; humans are amazingly resilient and resourceful.) Also really any long-term solution is going to have unacceptable economic impact (hey, let's turn back the industrial revolution!) and you'll never achieve compliance anyway (Kyoto anyone?).

Also this is a good attitude to take because it bypasses the wrangling over who's responsible for global warming. In other words, it seems to be well established that global temperatures are rising; there is a dispute over whether it is caused by man, but even those who aren't convinced of that if I am not mistaken accept that there is warming.

So buck it up. Get used to the heat. Adapt, or die.

OK I admit this is the last possible day to post this ...

Apparently a manger scene Jesus is getting a GPS tracking device after several thefts. Quote: "I don't anticipate this will ever happen again, but we may need to rely on technology to save our savior." In an ironic twist, it's a Jewish lawyer who's providing the new statue.

(Thanks to Dave Barry's blog)