Commercial Spaceflight: Another Step

Posted on March 8, 2019 by Brian H. Gill

The SpaceX Crew Dragon demonstration and test flight has gone well. The spacecraft returns to Earth Friday morning.

Folks may be riding Crew Dragon to and from the ISS later this year.

I found quite a bit about space stations, docking technology and other more-or-less-related topics. But if this is going to be done in time, that must wait until another day.

— Update, March 8, 2019 —

The Crew Dragon’s heat shield and parachutes worked. The capsule landed in the Atlantic, about 280 miles off the Florida coast:

Now, back to what I had ready yesterday.

Space Stations: Imagined and Real


(From NASA, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(ESA astronaut Hans Schlegel, in the ISS Columbus module.)

“2001: A Space Odyssey” wasn’t spot-on accurate about early-21st century tech and space flight. In 20-20 hindsight, it’s easy enough to see that straight-line extrapolation of 1960s spaceflight progress wasn’t likely.

On the other hand, I think the assumptions were good enough for a movie. Although the scale of 2001’s orbital and lunar installations seems extravagant.1

We’ve had about a dozen space stations launched during the last third of a century. Some didn’t stay up long enough to house a crew, one fell into the Pacific before reaching orbit, and all but one or two aren’t there any more. One became part of the ISS.

The International Space Station, ISS, has been in orbit and in use since 1998. Folks started staying there for extended periods in 2000.

Like Kubrick’s Station 5, it’s still being assembled. Apart from that, and having a shirtsleeve environment inside, it’s not much like its movie counterpart.

The ISS doesn’t have artificial gravity, accommodations don’t include a Hilton Hotel and it’s nowhere near as roomy. But much of the interior is white, like Kubrick’s Station 5.

Transportation services aren’t as apparently-affordable, either. From 1998 to 2011, each Space Shuttle launch to the ISS cost $450,000,000 to $1,500,000,000.

The Shuttle could carry 35,380 pounds to the ISS, $12,720 to $42,397 per pound. Today’s SpaceX Dragon costs are about the same, averaging $30,000 per pound on the same run.

I’m not sure how to compare that with commercial airline rates. Numbers I’ve seen for air transport expenses have been in cost per hour, not cost per trip.

Commercial Flights


(From Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division/Andro96, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Airline service, the early years: DELAG’s L 7 zeppelin.)

I don’t know what sort of commercial flight schedule would make sense for service to and from low Earth orbit (LEO). That won’t stop me from guessing. And making some whacking great assumptions.

Something in LEO takes 128 minutes or less per orbit. Many satellites orbit every 90 minutes. Space Shuttle missions spent considerable time in orbit. It made sense, since the Shuttle sometimes doubled as a space station before returning to Earth.

That’d be like an airliner arriving at Macau International Airport on Monday and waiting there until Saturday before going to its next stop.

I suspect that commercial passenger and cargo service will operate more like air transport.

I’ll assume, reasonably or not, that a typical spaceline’s LEO round trip will take five hours. That’s 90 minutes travel, an hour in orbit and another on the ground.

I’ve read that flying an Airbus A380 costs $26,000 an hour. At five hours, that’s $130,000 — a small fraction of Shuttle and Dragon flight expenses.

It’s still a bargain, compared to using single-use launch vehicles.

I figure costs will go down, as tech improves spaceflights become more routine.

We didn’t get aircraft like the A380, after all, until nearly a century after DELAG’s first zeppelin started ferrying passengers between Frankfurt am Main and Düsseldorf.2

Crew Dragon visits the ISS


(From NASA, used w/o permission.)
(ISS staff inspecting the SpaceX Crew Dragon. They’re wearing protective suits to avoid dust, in case some got shaken loose during launch.)

“SpaceX Crew Dragon Hatch Opened after Successfully Docking to Station”
Anna Heiney, NASA Blogs (March 4, 2019)

“After making 18 orbits of Earth since its launch early Saturday morning, the Crew Dragon spacecraft successfully attached to the International Space Station’s Harmony module forward port via ‘soft capture’ Sunday, March 3….”

This week’s Crew Dragon flight carried 400 pounds of cargo to the ISS and will return with 300. But it’s mostly a test flight, with no passengers apart from “Ripley,” the test dummy.

Ripley’s sensors include a microphone to record what folks would hear during the flight. The idea is to tell SpaceX and NASA what someone would feel and hear.

Maybe a test pilot could give more nuanced observations, but I don’t see a point in taking the sort of risks that eventually killed Otto Lilienthal. (May 26, 2017)

That brings me to another difference between space travel as imagined in “2001” and what we have today. Kubrick’s shuttle and lunar lander were apparently so reliable that passengers and crew didn’t need spacesuits in transit.

We’re not there yet. My guess is that some sort of pressure suit will be standard apparel for takeoffs and landings for a long time, like fasting seat belts on today’s airliners.

The SpaceX spacesuit seems to be designed mostly as safety gear: “…each custom-tailored suit is meant to provide a pressurized environment for all crew members aboard Dragon in atypical situations such as cabin depressurization….” (Dragon, SpaceX)

Maybe SpaceX has found ways to make a pressurized spacesuit flexible and svelte. More likely, designers figure that even in an emergency folks in the Crew Dragon won’t need to move much.

There’s a single control panel inside, but normally the spacecraft’s AI serves as pilot.3

Being Human

I’m pretty sure that airlines, space stations and reusable launch vehicles won’t solve all our problems. Neither will what we’re learning about this universe.

I’m also sure that seeking knowledge and developing new technology is part of being human. So is deciding how we use our knowledge and tools. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1723, 2292-2295)

I’ve talked about that sort of thing before:

1 In the movies:

2 A century of zeppelins and spaceships:

3 Commercial spaceflight, mostly SpaceX:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

A Goal for Lent

Posted on March 2, 2019 by Brian H. Gill

Lent starts March 6 this year. It’s a time for abstinence, prayer and penance, among other things, which is why we’ve got rules about Fridays and fish.

Following “fish” rules to the letter, I could splurge on lobster thermidor each Friday. I won’t. The household can’t afford it, for one thing. For another, gourmet dining isn’t what Lent is about.

I’ll talk about fish, fasting and my goals for Lent. Briefly.

Fish

Some calendars in my part of the world have Ash Wednesday and Lenten Fridays marked with a “fish” icon.

They’re fasting days, the ‘short rations’ sort.

That’s one full meal and two other meals that don’t add up to a full meal. Also no meat other than “fish.”

What “fish” means depends on context.

When I’ve got my ‘science’ cap on, fish are gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals. Wearing my ‘Catholic’ cap, fish are the scientific sort plus ectothermic land animals and shellfish.

That doesn’t make lobster thermidor a good choice for Lenten Fridays.

The cognac, sherry, wine or whatever isn’t the problem. Or the cheese.1

The problem is that it’s a luxury food, not what someone’s likely to eat when they’re cutting back on pleasures. Maybe somebody eats lobster thermidore, oysters Rockefeller and Acadian crawfish étouffée when money’s tight, or as penance. Most of us, not so much.

The Cajun crawfish might have been simple food, before restaurateurs got hold of it. And that’s another topic.

Fasting

My age and health make me exempt from Lent’s dietary restrictions. But ignoring Lent isn’t an option. Not a good one.

It’s a season for prayer, reading the Bible, almsgiving and exercising self-control. More so than usual.2

I figure doing ‘all of the above’ the right way is a good idea, too. Our Lord talked about that in Matthew 6:5–8, 8–21 and Mark 12:41–44.

As “right” as I can manage, at any rate. And that’s yet another topic.

One more thing about fasting and making sense. I’ve said this before. Often.

Gloominess is not next to Godliness. Hope is a virtue. Wanting happiness is part of being human. It’s a good idea, when we’re doing it right. So is seeing this world as basically good. (Genesis 1:31; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 27, 1718, 1817)

Purpose

My short-term Lenten goals include finding new-to-me prayers. At the moment, I’m figuring out what I’m looking for; and that’s yet again another topic.

My long-term goal during Lent and every season should be seeking, knowing and loving God; and spending eternity with our Lord. (Catechism, 1, 540, 1023–1029, 1095)

Meanwhile, it’s like Philippians 2:12 says: I’m ‘working out my salvation.’ Not that I could work or pray my way into Heaven.

And that’s — you guessed it — more topics:

1 Lent, rules and fish:

2 Lent, mostly:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Sickness, Death, God, Love and Questions

Posted on February 23, 2019 by Brian H. Gill

Just when you thought it was safe to grow up —

Folks in their 20s may run afoul of a quarter-life crisis: the doubt and disappointment of student loans, dull careers and iffy relationships.

Others learn that they’re terminally ill.

I learned about Michelle Pittman at Mass last Sunday.

An inoperable brain tumor will kill her.

She and her family have unexpected expenses. That’s why a Michelle Pittman Benefit fund was set up at a local bank:

Michelle Pittman Benefit
c/o MN National Bank
PO Box 306
Sauk Centre, MN 56378

Michelle Pittman’s situation and the benefit fund are the important part of this post.

I’d planned on writing about assorted crises, including terminal illness.1 That started me thinking about life, death and not having all the answers:

Life


(From Ramie Liddle, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)

I’m not sure which would be harder: being told that I have a terminal disease, or that someone in my family does. Either way, it wouldn’t be welcome news.

Learning that they’re terminally ill, folks occasionally pick something from their bucket list: like the 90-year-old who went on a road trip.

Coping with impending death and other bad news isn’t new. Neither is thinking about it.

Over the last 28 centuries, folks like Adi Shankara, Ajita Kesakambali and Sigmund Freud added their views to humanity’s archives.

They agree that death happens, and little else. I figure that’s at least one step past the “denial” Kübler-Ross stage.

Maybe that’s better than getting stuck in Freud’s ‘three Rs:’ repression, regression and reaction. Western civilization’s current iteration seems to be getting over Freud’s view of religion as a “universal obsessional neurosis,” and that’s almost another topic.2

Questions

‘Why do we get sick?’

It’s not a simple question. There are several sorts of “why,” for starters.

We’ve learned that Hippocrates was right about disease and divine anger issues. Humorism, not so much.

Learning more about Varro’s “animalcules” eventually removed bloodletting from “The Principles and Practice of Medicine,” and that’s another topic.3

Blaming God, or the gods, for disease and disasters remains popular in spiritual niche markets. Like the Atra-Hasis epic, where Enlil deals with noisy humans by ordering our extermination. Several times. We survived, thanks to divine infighting, and that’s yet another topic.4

Where was I? Impending death, Freud, bloodletting and Enlil. Right.

My culture’s versions of divine retribution traditionally had God smiting folks as punishment: for opening a casino, avoiding smallpox, whatever.

“…There was the burgeoning Gulf Coast gambling industry, with a new casino that was to open on Labor Day weekend….”
(“Katrina: God’s Judgment on America,” Anonymous, Restore America (2005) via Beliefnet)

“Smallpox is a visitation from God; but the cowpox is produced by presumptuous man; the former was what Heaven ordained, the latter is, perhaps, a daring violation our of holy religion.”
(A physician’s reaction to Dr. Edward Jenner’s experiments in developing a vaccine for smallpox, (1796) via Psychological Sciences, Vanderbilt University)

Believing that God smites bad people with disease might be comforting. Until the believer gets sick.

Sooner or later, we’ll learn that sickness, pain and death happen to folks. No matter how nice we’ve been.

Some figure that God shouldn’t let that happen, so God isn’t there. Believing that may feel good, too, for different reasons.

Reality

The way I see it — backing up a bit here — I’m as sure as I can be that reality is real, that I’m not a figment of your imagination. Or vice versa.

I’m also sure that God exists: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1, 232–260)

I think this universe is God’s handiwork. It’s more like a tent than something permanent, but it’s “very good.” (Genesis 1:1–31; Psalms 102:26–28; Wisdom 11:22–26; Isaiah 40:22, 51:6; Catechism, 282–289)

I think God keeps this universe going. And that it follows knowable physical laws. Paying attention to God’s handiwork is a good idea, since there’s a facet of God’s truth in everything we can observe. (Catechism, 268, 279, 299, 300–310)

Natural process like fire and gravity exist. Learning how they work doesn’t bother me, since I think God creates everything. Including the physical laws we notice. And those we haven’t yet, for that matter.

It’s like St. Thomas Aquinas said. God makes things happen and creatures make things happen. It’s “and,” not “or.” (March 2, 2018)

Aquinas called that sort of thing “secondary causes.” He’d gotten the idea from St. Augustine of Hippo, and that’s yet again another topic.

Anyway, secondary causes are creatures acting and changing in knowable ways, following laws written into this creation. (Catechism, 301–308, 339)

Ethics, right and wrong, apply to illness. That doesn’t mean I think preventing disease is “a daring violation” of divine wrath.

Being healthy is okay. So is being sick. How I act: that’s what matters. It’s even okay to help others get or stay healthy. (Catechism, 1509, 2288–2291, 2292–2296)

Interesting as all that may be, it doesn’t tell me why someone in her 20s is terminally ill.

Death and Deuteronomy

People suffer and die. I don’t know why. Not in detail, not in the sense of knowing what purpose someone’s death serves.

As “Gaudium et spes,” “Joy and Hope,” says, it’s part of our life’s riddle.

“…It is in the face of death that the riddle [of] a human existence grows most acute….”
(“Gaudium et spes,” Pope Saint Paul VI (December 7, 1965))

I don’t have an answer to that riddle. Not a complete one. I do have a few clues.

Given what our Lord said, I figure that early or unexpected death isn’t necessarily the victim’s fault.

“‘Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”
(Matthew 7:1–3)

“‘Or those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than everyone else who lived in Jerusalem?'”
(Luke 13:4)

Even so, I could assume that the fire and brimstone brigade are right, that God has anger management issues. Or shares their views on gambling and smallpox, and has a taste for indiscriminate retribution.

Or I could believe that since a loving God wouldn’t let folks suffer, God doesn’t exist.

Appealing as those answers apparently are, I don’t think they’re right. I’m also quite sure that I don’t know everything. God’s God, I’m not, and I’ve said that before. Often.

I don’t have all the answers. I do, however, have access to wisdom accumulated over several millennia. Some of which keeps getting forgotten and re-learned.

The importance of passing on vital knowledge to children, for instance:

“However, be on your guard and be very careful not to forget the things your own eyes have seen, nor let them slip from your heart as long as you live, but make them known to your children and to your children’s children,”
(Deuteronomy 4:9)

The next bit, Deuteronomy 4:10, says we should fear God: which may account for some of my culture’s more enthusiastic hellfire sermons.

Deuteronomy’s “fear” isn’t being scared silly. It’s more like respect, reverence and awe. (Catechism, 1806, 1828, 1831; General Audience, Pope Francis (June 11, 2014); “Fear of the Lord,” Angelus, Pope St. John Paul II (June 11, 1989))

‘Our Helicopter Parent Who art in Heaven?!’

I figure God is large and in charge. (Psalms 115:3; Catechism, 268)

The Almighty could keep me from making daft decisions, or clean up whatever mess I make — all without me lifting a finger.

That might be a nifty daydream. But would I really want God to fix everything?

Maybe not. Particularly since if God had cleaned up everyone’s mess, I wouldn’t be here.

Again, I think God creates everything, including this universe. I’ve talked about the Bible, Big Bang and using my brain before. (January 12, 2018)

Basically, I can think Genesis 3:1–19 is true without assuming it was written by a poetically-challenged American.

You know how that story goes. The first of us had it made, with only one simple rule. Then we decided we’d rather do our own thing. The man tried blaming his wife and God, which worked out about as well as you’d expect. (July 23, 2017)

When the first of us put our preferences above God’s, I figure the Almighty could have decided to (metaphorically) hit the ‘delete’ key and make another reality.

That’s not what happened.

Even if God had decided to keep us and this universe, we might have lost at least part of what makes us human.

We didn’t.

We were, and are, created “in the image of God.” We had, and have, dominion over this world: and our job, taking care of the place. That job comes with authority and responsibility. (Genesis 1:26–28; 2:5–8; Catechism, 16, 339, 356–358, 2402, 2415–2418, 2456)

We got off to a bad start. We’re still dealing with its consequences. The mess we’re in isn’t God’s fault. And God never forgot us. (Catechism, 30, 55, 390, 396–401)

None of that helps me feel better about death and suffering. I’d be concerned if I started enjoying pain.

Pain

A few more ideas, and I’m done.

Life and health are “precious gifts” from God. Getting and staying healthy is a good idea. Within reason. Painkillers are okay.5 (Catechism, 1506–1510, 2279, 2288–2289, 2292)

Then, no matter what we do or how we’ve lived, we die. What happens later can be good news or bad news. (Catechism, 991, 997, 1021–1037, 1042–1050)

That, and the few clues we have about what’s next, are among the reasons I’m grateful for God’s patience.

“When mortals finish, they are only beginning,
and when they stop they are still bewildered.
“The number of their days seems great
if it reaches a hundred years.
“Like a drop of water from the sea and a grain of sand,
so are these few years among the days of eternity.
“That is why the Lord is patient with them
and pours out his mercy on them.”
(Sirach 18:7, 9–11)

“But as it is written:
‘What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard,
and what has not entered the human heart,
what God has prepared for those who love him,'”
(1 Corinthians 2:9)

I’ve talked about that, and vaguely-related topics, before:

1 Life and death:

2 Dealing with reality:

3 Medicine, mostly:

4 Deities and disasters:

5 Life, death and viewpoints:

Posted in Discursive Detours | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Rules, Principles, and a Defrocked Cardinal

Posted on February 17, 2019 by Brian H. Gill

I’m not sure how the ‘defrocked Cardinal’ story will play out in America’s news.

Assorted presidential campaigns will be building up steam, and there’s no shortage of other newsworthy angst.

Maybe the McCarrick case will be a nine day wonder, maybe not. Either way, I did a little checking, and shared what I found.

Saturday’s Headlines

The Pope’s decision in the Theodore McCarrick case may have come at almost exactly the right time for a French author’s “bombshell book.”

Maybe the McCarrick case will fade into the back pages, as America’s presidential campaigns get juicier. Then again, it’s been a while since we had a high-profile Catholic scandal; so maybe there’s sound and fury ahead.

Either way, I’m not happy about what’s happened. Maybe I’ll talk about that some other time. Today, I’ll share what I learned about Theodore McCarrick — and talk about what’s right, what’s not, and how I see rules.

Theodore McCarrick: Sentenced to Life in Kansas


(From Reuters, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Multiple allegations against Theodore McCarrick have emerged”
(BBC News))

“US ex-cardinal Theodore McCormick defrocked over abuse claims”
BBC News (February 16, 2019)

“A former Roman Catholic cardinal has been defrocked after historical sexual abuse allegations.

“Theodore McCarrick is the most senior Catholic figure to be dismissed from the priesthood in modern times.

“US Church officials said allegations he had sexually assaulted a teenager five decades ago were credible.

“Mr McCarrick, 88, had previously resigned but said he had ‘no recollection’ of the alleged abuse.

“The alleged abuses may have taken place too long ago for criminal charges to be filed because of the statute of limitations.

“Mr McCarrick was the archbishop of Washington DC from 2001 to 2006. Since his resignation last year from the College of Cardinals, he has been living in seclusion in a monastery in Kansas….”

Backing up a little, Theodore McCarrick was born in 1930. He and his parents lived in New York City. His father died when he was three. McCarrick became a priest in 1958.

He studied and served as an assistant chaplain at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., where he became dean of students and director of development. From 1965 to 1969, he was president of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico.

Next, McCarrick was recalled to New York. He became an assistant secretary for education and was assistant priest at Blessed Sacrament parish from 1969 to 1971. Later, someone said that he’d been abused by McCarrick around this time.

From 1971 to 1977 McCarrick as Cardinal Terence Cooke’s secretary. After that, he was an auxiliary bishop, bishop and archbishop of New York, Metuchen, Newark and finally Washington, D.C. — and now lives in a monastery somewhere in Kansas.

After a life spent mostly in America’s Northeast megalopolis, being sentenced to serve a life of prayer and penance in Kansas may feel like being exiled to Siberia.

Still, it could be worse. McCarrick could have been sentenced to life in Minnesota. And that’s another topic.1

Accusations and a Question

Quite a few folks seem to think Theodore McCarrick did something wrong.

But did he? The question isn’t all that crazy.

McCarrick has been accused of having sex with other men: many of them above the age of consent.

The accusations apparently weren’t made until years after the affairs. That could suggest that the other men didn’t feel victimized until long after the event.

The Catholic Church has rules about sex: controversial rules. Many folks say they’re out of date, not in tune with today’s world. Maybe it’s the rules that are wrong.

The idea’s been around for a while.

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.'”
(Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr.(1963))

“An unjust law is no law at all.”
(“On Free Choice Of The Will,” Book 1, § 5, Augustine of Hippo (387–389))

“For there is but one essential justice which cements society, and one law which establishes this justice. This law is right reason, which is the true rule of all commandments and prohibitions. Whoever neglects this law, whether written or unwritten, is necessarily unjust and wicked.”
(“De Legibus (On the Laws),” Cicero (1st century BC))

Rules

Here’s where it gets interesting.

From what I’ve read, Theodore McCarrick probably did violate Church rules about sexual behavior.

The BBC News article says that the Archdiocese of New York had an independent forensic agency investigate allegations against McCarrick.

Legal experts, psychologists, parents and a priest on a review board said the allegations were “credible and substantiated.” (BBC News)

That doesn’t strike me as a rush to judgment. Maybe he honestly didn’t remember the incidents, or maybe he was still hoping that folks would believe him.

Either way, I’m willing to assume that McCarrick acted as his accusers said he did.

That brings me to whether the Church’s rules about sex are okay. Also what sin is. I’ve talked about this before, fairly often.

Sin and Respect

Sin is a failure to love. It’s what happens when I don’t love God and my neighbor, or don’t see everyone as my neighbor. Everyone. No exceptions. (Matthew 5:43–44, 22:36–40, Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–37; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1706, 1776, 1825, 1849-1851, 1955)

Sin is an offense against reason, truth and God. (Catechism, 1849-1850)

I do that more often than I like.

Feeling an impulse to act badly isn’t a sin, by itself. Acting on the impulse: deciding to follow through with whatever I feel like doing, or that stopping myself is too much trouble? That’s where I start sinning. Catechism, 1730-1742)

Basically, I’ve got a brain. I’m expected to use it.

One more thing, about thinking and feeling. Emotions happen. They’re part of being human. By themselves, they’re not good or bad. What matters is what we do about them. (Catechism, 1762-1770)

Feeling an impulse to perform homosexual acts can happen. Feeling the impulse isn’t what’s evil. Deciding to cooperate with the impulse, or deciding to go with the flow: that’s where trouble starts. (Catechism, 2357-2359)

I’m expected to recognize the action as a sin, and remember that folks deserve “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (Catechism, 2358)

Even folks who aren’t exactly like me. And that’s yet another topic.

Minions?

Martin Luther King, Augustine of Hippo and Cicero said, or at least implied, that sometimes breaking a law isn’t a bad thing.

How can I, as a Catholic, possibly think they’re right?

Aren’t we expected to blindly do as we’re told? And doesn’t respecting authority mean obeying even the most obviously-wrong laws?

My guess is that describing Catholics as brainwashed minions of a foreign power is out of fashion in most American circles. Times change, and so do our cliches and slogans.

Old stereotypes die hard, though, so I’ll talk about authority, rules, and doing what’s right.

I should respect authority. Obedience is a good idea. Blind obedience isn’t. (Catechism, 1900, 1951, 2242-2243)

Some rules don’t change. No matter where or when I lived, loving God and neighbor would still be good ideas.

Some rules must change, as our circumstances change. Rules work better when they’re in line with the rules that don’t change.

We call the unchanging rules, principles written into this reality, natural law. (Catechism, 1950-1974)

Positive law is our name for rules we make up. Those rules should change if they aren’t consistent with natural law. (February 5, 2017)

More, mostly how I see love and acting like it matters:

1 Background:

Posted in Discursive Detours | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Walking

Posted on February 16, 2019 by Brian H. Gill

Reflections and reality,
Walking toward the light.
Footprints lost to time and tide.
Destination still unseen,
Following rippled outlines,
Walking toward the light.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:

Posted in Poems, Series | Tagged , , | 2 Comments