News Clips: January 2008 Archives

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.

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.

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.

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)