News Clips: July 2007 Archives

Now some enterprising individual has put a reverse image of The Last Supper painting on top of a normal image and come up with what you'd expect: a Rorshach test you can make any titillating thing you want to out of. Ok, so he sees a woman with a baby. For those who believe Dan Brown's book, this suggests Mary Magdalene and Jesus's baby. There is also something about a goblet I can't figure out the significance to.

This reminds me of the person who supposedly computer analyzed the bible and counted up all the words, nouns, verbs, and so forth and concluded that numerologically it proved that the Bible was the Word of God. He didn't seem to say which textual variants he used and why, nor did he comment on the revolutionary breakthrough of computer software being able to distinguish between nouns and verbs (which, at least in English, is none too easy for a computer to do). I dunno, maybe he went through all the thousands and thousands of combinations of textual variations to see which one came up with "miraculous" results.

We'll see how readily the media runs with this one.

Reliably raving feminist Anna Quindlen asks pro-lifers in this week's Newsweek (dated next week), What should be the penalty for criminalized abortion? A fair question, depending on the intent with which it is asked.

I'd say six months to five years, with five years being reserved for the most egregious cases (say someone having an abortion to spite the law), and six months where leniency is called for (of course you still have suspended sentence or whatever they do), and one year being the normal case. Also it depends on the age of the fetus. Late-term abortions should approach the sentence for infanticide. Don't even know what that sentence is.

I don't agree with her apparent contention, which I consider specious and purely to make a bogus rhetorical point, that it's "hypocrisy" to be lenient or admit of special circumstances or refer them to counseling or so forth. This sort of thing is done all the time for other crimes. Nor is there anything wrong with recognizing that this nation, after over thirty years of abortion, is not ready for full criminalization, in the sense of rushing to impose heavy sentences. Of course our opponents would support that, because they know everyone would rebel and it would help their cause. That is why they are egging us on with specious arguments. There is nothing wrong with having a law with a token sentence (not that I think this would be "token") to show that society disapproves of something — to make a statement. Of course, there are also laws that are not enforced, but that's another matter.

The fact is though, contrary to the rhetoric of the left, very few women who have abortions freely choose them. No one says "Hey, what a great day, I think I'll have an abortion to exercise my feminist choice." In a great many cases the woman's S.O. or family coerces her into it. In other cases circumstances leave her feeling she has no choice. These may vary in gravity from "I will die of hunger if I have this baby" to "I'll have to drop out of school" to "We're not ready to have a baby". This is why the pro-life movement has always, always shown marvelous compassion to women, both pre- and post-abortion. This is why, according to this article, we pro-lifers seem so squishy on the issue. She doesn't expect compassion from us so she regards it as squishiness or "hypocrisy". It's just a fact that in a lot of cases, the woman is the least guilty of everyone involved, which is why I think there should also be laws forbidding people from coercing people into abortions.

Hey there is an idea. That would be a good way to regain the moral high ground and attack abortion indirectly. Abortion may be a so-called "Constitutional right" but coercing a woman into an abortion isn't. What if we criminalize that first? Who could make a cogent argument against that and still come out smelling like a rose? It would I think be effective as a weapon against abortion. I like that idea! I wonder if I can talk to someone about making it happen ...

(Thanks to Greg K.)

Rod Dreher, a double convert to Catholicism and then to Orthodoxy, wrote an excellent piece on the recent CDF document explaining the Catholic Church's position on other churches. Like the other Orthodox I've heard on the issue he's very supportive. He talks a lot about being honest and laying down the truth.

He makes a little side tour on an interesting subject. Apparently there is a name for that nebulous sort of don't-want-to-get-too-involved type of theism that I'd argue most Americans practice. It's called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, which, as researchers explain, teaches that a vaguely defined God exists, cares about us and wants us to be good, nice and fair. You don't need to get too involved with God, absent a problem or crisis. The point of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. Good people go to heaven.

Nice to have a name for this. It's pervasive, even among Catholics. And it's wrong. It's not the Gospel. It's time to wake people up to this fact. Heaven is not a place defined as where the sufficiently good get into heaven. Heaven is for those in communion with Christ, which comes by the grace of God through faith. While it's true one can lose one's salvation by doing evil, one doesn't, according to the Gospel, work one's way into heaven strictly by being good and shunning evil. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Oh well, one more burden of evangelization.

A Jesuit says we should treat the Second Life virtual reality game as mission territory. Of course, knowing the Jesuits, one has to ask which gospel they are thinking of taking.

The pope gives nods to both ecology and evolution. Granted he didn't say much about evolution that John Paul didn't already say.

It's not clear that he endorsed intelligent design as the movement is presently understood. Perhaps in a rudimentary way he did but I'm not sure its legit to use the term in that way anymore.

The greatest living American is being ignored by the media, according to Gregg Easterbrook. Again, according to Easterbrook, this man "has saved more lives than anyone else who has ever lived." A bold claim. Who is he? Hint: He is one of only two Americans who won the Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE: See his July 18 blog post for an interesting followup. Note: Some dispute his claim that this man is being ignored in the media. See the comments.

(Thanks to Greg K.)

Pope Shenuda of Alexandria rebukes the Pope on latest Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document on other churches. Seems a lot of people are upset, and there has been a lot of distortion in the media. (The media, it seems, is not the best way to communicate delicate and controversial doctrines, though on the other hand it seems hard to see how the Holy See can still publish something and state its case clearly while avoiding media attention.)

We don't hear much from Pope Shenuda. Kinda nice to hear from him even if it is negative. Makes me wonder what the Copts believe about their own church and role in ecumenism. Do they believe they are the one true church? Does their ecclesiology match the Orthodox ecclesiology? Interesting questions.

The Pope may visit New York next spring, and possibly several other American cities. Boston was specifically mentioned. Since that's where I live I think that would be very cool.

Seems that all this mugger really wanted was a hug.

Kudos to this family for the courage to do what they did!

Something that grew out of a comment discussion is a statement the Pope made today about non-Catholic churches. This is a good document, not necessarily in the sense that it's a joyful or happy document, but in the sense that it addresses some critical questions.

Its purpose, in part, is to reiterate and explain why Protestant communities are not "churches" in the proper sense of the term (and why Orthodox churches are). Specifically, because churches have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist. These are seen as essential to the term "church" as we use it. I see it as a semantic nuance. It doesn't mean that people can't be saved in these churches, only that these churches don't possess some elements Catholicism considers to be essential to "churches" per se. One can argue about the semantics. I personally think this is an arbitrary distinction to make; I understand the definition, but I don't fully understand the rationale behind the distinction. Still, I fully respect and support it.

One point to make is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy believe that the church is an organ by which grace and salvation are communicated, mystically, to Christians. It's like a mother nursing her child. For a lot of Protestants, my impression is the church is just a place where believers hang out, nothing more. It's a convenience, it's helpful, it's even important, but it doesn't play an essential role in salvation. They are just radically different views. So you can see how Pope Benedict would want to clarify the term. I even note that the Assemblies of God does not call itself a church (at least in its name), and neither does the Southern Baptist Convention, and many other Protestants are going the same way.

A few other interesting points.

What if you couldn't say your own name without cursing?

(Ok, technically it wouldn't be cursing but it's fun to think about)

(Thanks to Greg K.)

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article* about a surge in people who are giving sacrificially on a large scale. These may be people who live modest, thrifty lives for many years then all of a sudden will give a million dollars to some charitable cause. One of the most well-known was Oseola McCarty, who was an elderly washerwoman. In 1995, out of the blue she gave $150,000 to the University of Southern Mississippi to fund scholarships. James Doty, a doctor, gave 99% of his net worth, $29 million, to charity. These are not like the rich man of the Gospel who gave just a bit of what he owned and suffered no loss; these are people like the widow who gave all she had. They don't look to luxuries in their twilight years. And they've informed their children that there will be no inheritance.

A lot of people who make "stretch gifts" look to examples they had growing up. That's not surprising. And they will be an inspiration for others.

Also not surprising is that family members and friends don't always approve or understand. Doty's wife was concerned about their 2 year-old son and retirement, and nearly everyone he consulted thought he was crazy. (Although that's possible — recklessly excessive generosity is a symptom of mania.) Still, some people never will understand.

*Article will expire around 7/13.