Sandra and Tommy: Apes and Ethics

Posted on July 15, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

A court in Argentina said that Sandra the orangutan is “una persona no humana (non-human person)” in 2014.1 Or maybe 2015. I’ll get back to that.

Instead of going ape over that news, I learned a little about Sandra, the Buenos Aires Zoo, and the curious case of Tommy the chimp:

  1. ‘A Non-Human Person:’ the Story Continues
  2. Sandra the Orangutan: Law and “Persons”
  3. The Curious Case of Tommy the Chimp

Chimps and orangutans don’t have much in common with cephalopods, apart from being the subject of intelligence-related research; but I wrote about them, anyway:

Now, a few words about science, faith, and what I see in a mirror.

Looking in a Mirror

When I look in a mirror, I see eyes, nostrils, and a mouth: it’s pretty obvious that I’m an animal, a vertebrate.

The hair shows that I’m a mammal. Other features peg me as a primate; specifically a hominid: the sort of critter we used to call “great apes.”

That doesn’t bother me: which may need some explaining.

I’ve run into folks who seem to feel “set apart” from the rest of God’s creation.

Maybe it feels more “spiritual” to pretend that physical reality is nasty, and that humans aren’t supposed to have biological functions. That doesn’t make sense. Not to me.

I’m a Christian, a Catholic, so I must believe that I’m made from the stuff of this world:

“2 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.”
(Genesis 2:7)

That doesn’t mean that my faith is shaken when I check my blood sugar, and see something other than phyllosilicate minerals — literal clay — come out of the pinprick.

Taking the Bible seriously does not mean believing that Sacred Scriptures were written from a contemporary Western literalist’s viewpoint. Not even close. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 101-133)

It does mean believing that God doesn’t make junk:

“God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed – the sixth day.”
(Genesis 1:31)

If God thinks this world is “very good,” I’m not going to argue.

Besides, I agree. I like the world I’m in. I don’t think it’s perfect, and that’s another topic.

Greater Admiration

We’re told that God created a good, beautiful, and ordered world, and that studying it is okay.

Scientific discoveries are invitations to “even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator.” (Psalms 19:2; Wisdom 7:17; Catechism, 283, 299, 341)

We’re a special sort of animal, endowed with reason, with free will. We’re also people. We’re made in the image of God: rational, with free will. (Catechism, 1951, 1700-1706, 1730)

That freedom comes with personal responsibility, and that’s yet another topic. (Catechism, Catechism, 1731-1742)

Part of our job is taking care of the physical world, including animals. (Genesis 1:27–28; Catechism, 16, 341, 373, 2415-2418)

Galenus: Almost, but Not Quite, Right

Noticing similarities between ourselves and other primates, and looking for differences, is nothing new.

Aelius Galenus/Claudius Galenus/Κλαύδιος Γαληνός was a doctor when Antoninus Pius was Emperor, and died around the time Justin Martialis assassinated Caracalla.

Martialis was upset because Caracalla hadn’t promoted him to Centurion. We’re pretty sure that Praetorian prefect Macrinus aimed Martialis at Caracalla, with predictable results.

Then a Scythian archer killed Martialis, a few days later Macrinus was the new emperor, and that’s yet again another topic.

Where was I? Galenus, monkeys, Caracalla. Right.

The Roman Empire didn’t allow autopsies back then, except in very rare cases, like Julius Caesar’s assassination; so Galen dissected monkeys, not humans.

He figured that since monkeys look a lot like humans, human anatomy was the same as monkey anatomy: apart from the tail. He was almost, but not quite, right.

I’ve said this before.

Truth and Pope Leo XIII

“Saeculum obscurum/dark ages” is what Caesar Baronius called the time between 888, when the Carolingian Empire ended to the Georgian Reform of 1050 (more or less). That was around 1600.

He had a point. Toward the end of that period, Pope Benedict IX was Pope three times: the only one to have been kicked out and reinstated, and the only Pope who sold the Papacy.

Those were not good times.

We’re up to Benedict XVI now, and Pope Francis.

The “dark ages” name caught on, along with the notion that religion drenched (European) civilization in superstition and ignorance from the 6th to the 13th centuries.

The notion is — inaccurate.

St. Albertus Magnus, patron Saint of scientists, lived toward the end of that period. It’s hardly surprising that he studied natural processes. That’s one way we can learn more about God. (Catechism, 31-35)

Since we don’t worship nature — that’d be idolatry — we can study it without fear of offending ‘the spirits.’ (Catechism, 282-283, 2112-2114)

We think God is large and in charge, and rational. As St. Iranaeus pointed out, we’re rational and therefore like God; with free will — and that brings up still more topics. (Catechism, 268, 2112-2114, 1730, 1934, 1951)

Bottom line, the Greco-Roman prohibition of autopsies no longer applies. Not where folks understood the Catholic faith. (Catechism, 2301)

Today’s medical science and technology probably exists in large part because Christianity’s attitude toward the study of nature allows autopsies and other scientific research.

Getting back to Galenus, we’re a bit like monkeys, but not as close as he figured. Eventually folks like Andreas Vesalius started studying human bodies.

Fast-forwarding to the 19th century, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species inspired some folks to compare ape and human anatomy, and others to panic. That’s still going on, but I figure Pope Leo XIII is right:

“…God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures – and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. … Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth….”
(“Providentissimus Deus,” Pope Leo XIII (November 18, 1893) [emphasis mine])

Getting a Grip About Owen, Huxley, and Primate Brains

The “Great Hippocampus Question” was a hot topic during the mid-19th century.

Biologist, comparative anatomist and paleontologist Richard Owen agreed that evolution happened: but was more complicated than Darwin’s model.

Owen also said that humans were mammals, but not primates: and so couldn’t have evolved from apes.

Owen based his argument on the (alleged) fact that only human brains have a hippocampus minor.

Biologist Thomas Henry Huxley thought Darwin was right.

The debate devolved into something resembling the current American presidential election, producing satiric poems and cartoons: and, happily, some serious research.

Scientists eventually found something a whole lot like a hippocampus minor in other primate brains, and we moved on:

These days we call that part of the brain the Calcar avis. Human brains aren’t exactly like those of other primates, but we’re not all that different, either.

I’m about as sure as I can be that humans are people and orangutans aren’t. But I’m also quite certain that we may use animals, and that we are responsible for their humane care: particularly those which we directly control. (Catechism, 2417, 2457, 2415-2418)

1. ‘A Non-Human Person:’ the Story Continues


(From AP, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Sandra the Orang-utan hit international headlines when A Buenos Aires court declared her ‘a non-human person’ deserving rights”
(BBC News))

“Buenos Aires to shut scandal-prone zoo”
BBC News (June 24, 2016)

“The mayor of Buenos Aires has announced that his administration has taken over the running of the city’s zoo after a series of scandals about the condition of its animals and buildings.

“It will now become an eco-park promoting environmental conservation.

“Its 2,500 animals will be moved to sanctuaries in other parts of Argentina and abroad where they can be housed in better conditions.

“Mr Larreta said the animals had been living in degrading conditions.

“The zoo has been in existence since 1875, run by a private company which won a concession to manage it….”

Turns out, the Parque Tres de Febrero was built on land which used to be owned by Juan Manuel de Rosas.

The project started in 1974, the park opened on November 11, 1875, and was owned by Argentina’s Federal Government until 1888.

That’s when ownership transferred to the City of Buenos Aires, and Mayor Antonio Crespo started the Buenos Aires Zoo, separating it from the rest of the park. From around 1944 to 1991, a series of political appointees ran the place: and let it deteriorate.

The zoo was privatized in 1991, animals started being transferred from cages to natural-looking areas, and a Buenos Aries court said that an orangutan was “una persona no humana (non-human person)” in 2014. That’s what the BBC News article said.

Or maybe it was October 21, 2015, when Judge Elena Amanda Liberatori ruled on Sandra’s status.1

This isn’t a tidy little tale of capitalist profit-mongers oppressing the non-human proletariat, until thwarted by a wise and benevolent government — and that’s another topic or two.

I think it’s interesting that making the transition from animals in cages to animals in more open settings apparently started after privatization.

That would probably have happened anyway: the trend over the last few decades has been away from menagerie and towards immersion exhibit.

2. Sandra the Orangutan: Law and “Persons”


(From Reuters, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Sandra covers her head with a cloth to protect herself from the public gaze at the Buenos Aires Zoo”
(BBC News))

“Court in Argentina grants basic rights to orangutan”
(December 21, 2014)

“A court in Argentina has ruled that a shy orangutan who spent the last 20 years in a zoo can be granted some legal rights enjoyed by humans.

“Lawyers had appealed to free Sandra from the Buenos Aires zoo by arguing that although not human, she should be given legal rights.

“They had argued that she was being illegally detained.

“If there is no appeal, the ape will be transferred to a sanctuary in Brazil where she will enjoy greater freedom.

“The singular case hung on whether the animal was a ‘thing’ or a ‘person’.

“In December a New York State court threw out a request to free a privately owned chimpanzee arguing that the animal was property and had no legal rights….”

I’m no export on Argentine law and custom: so maybe “una persona no humana”1 doesn’t have the apparent connotations of “non-human person.”

In my country, a corporation is a legal person — but not a natural person, or human being. Both sorts of “persons” have legal rights and obligations: but not the same rights.

I’m okay with that: and am acutely aware that American federal, state, and local laws are not perfect.

Part of the good news about the 2014 decision is that Sandra may enjoy a better life as a result.

Another bit of good news is that apparently her new “rights” don’t include the right to vote. Don’t laugh: it’s been seriously suggested.1

I haven’t discovered whether the Buenos Aires court was a city, provincial, or federal court.1

3. The Curious Case of Tommy the Chimp


(From AP, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Chimpanzee Tommy is believed to be 40 years old”
(BBC News))

“US chimpanzee Tommy ‘has no human rights’ – court”
BBC News (December 4, 2016)

“A chimpanzee is not entitled to the same rights as people and does not have to be freed from captivity by its owner, a US court has ruled.

“The appeals court in New York state said caged chimpanzee Tommy could not be recognised as a ‘legal person’ as it ‘cannot bear any legal duties’.

“The Nonhuman Rights Project had argued that chimps who had such similar characteristics to the humans deserved basic rights, including freedom.

“The rights group said it would appeal….”

The photo reminded me of old movies like “White Heat” and “Little Caesar,” with lines like Rico Bandello‘s: “You want me, you’ll have to come and get me.”

“Tommy” went missing last month. The chimp may have escaped, like Inky did in April.2 My guess is that some one stole the famous chimp.

Thinking that the chimp was “stolen,” not “kidnapped,” doesn’t mean that I think “Tommy” shouldn’t be located and restored to a safe(er) place.

“Missing: ‘Tommy’ the Chimpanzee Featured in New Documentary about Animal Rights and Subject of Famous Lawsuit”
Roger Friedman, Showbiz411 (May 25, 2016)

“There’s no amber alert for chimpanzees, but maybe there should be. Tommy, the chimp who was at the center of a much publicized lawsuit over his rights and ‘personhood’ last year, is missing.

“Tommy is featured in an Oscar worthy documentary opening today in New York called ‘Unlocking the Cage’ by Oscar nominee Chris Hegedus and lifetime Oscar winner DA Pennebaker.

“Last night the film was screened at HBO….”

I talked about primate intelligence, human and otherwise, earlier; why I think humans are animals, but not-human animals aren’t people; and why we shouldn’t mistreat (other) animals.

Inky the octopus started me thinking about cephalopod intelligence, which seems like a good way to wrap up this post.

This sort of thing fascinates me. Your experience may vary.

Neurons, Brains, and Ethics


(From Science Photo Library, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)

Since animals use neurons to process information, we can get a very rough estimate of how smart a critter is by counting how many neurons it has. These numbers are averages, and rounded to the nearest hundred, hundred thousand, or whatever:

  • Human: 86,000,000,000
  • Cat: 760,000,000
  • Octopus: 500,000,000
  • Brown rat: 200,000,000
  • Cockroach: 1,000,000
  • Jellyfish (Hydra vulgaris): 5,600
    (Source: Wikipedia)

Okay, that’s how many neurons the critters have in their entire nervous system. Looks like octopi should be smarter than rats, but not quite as smart as cats. Makes sense to me.

We can get a slightly better estimate by counting neurons in the cerebral cortex:

  • Human: 21,000,000,000
  • Cat: 300,000,000
  • Rat: 18,000,000
    (Source: Wikipedia)

A chimp has roughly 6,200,000,000 neurons in the cerebral cortex: so yes, chimps are really smart, but not as smart as humans.

Only mammals have a cerebral cortex. Birds are smarter than the “birdbrain” epithet suggests, but their pallium isn’t wired like a mammal’s and I’m wandering off-topic.

An octopus is a mollusc, with about two thirds of the critter’s 300,000,000 neurons in its arms. Small wonder that octopus intelligence is “much debated among biologists.” They’re not wired at all like us.

However, it looks like those eight-armed mollusks could be at least as smart as the lab rats used in maze experiments.

That’s partly why some countries have protective legislation for octopuses, insisting that surgery performed on them be with anesthesia.

I think that’s a good idea. Responsibilities come with being human. Using animals is okay, but making them suffer or die needlessly isn’t. (Catechism, 2418)

1 I haven’t found much about the 2015 ruling, and only a little more about Judge Liberatori: the latter mostly in Wikipedia’s Spanish version. Either way, it looks like the Argentine court “…ordered the city of Buenos Aires to provide what is ‘necessary to preserve her cognitive abilities.’…” (Wikipedia)

More about Sandra the orangutan, animal rights, and all that; mostly from an American viewpoint:

2 Animal intelligence and Inky the octopus:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Temperance, Catholic Style

Posted on July 10, 2016 by Brian H. Gill


(From O. Herford, via Life Magazine/Wikipedia, used w/o permission.)
(“Life” magazine, Demon Rum, and Matthew 12:45: June 26, 1919.)

My household is “dry:” there’s no beer in the fridge, wine in a rack, or whiskey on a shelf. That’s partly because I drank too much, which was a very bad idea. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2290)

After that experience, I could get cherophobia and virtue confused — but I won’t.

Cherophobia, aversion to happiness; and hedonophobia, fear of pleasure; are real words. But “blessed are the miserable, for they shall spread misery” is not in the Beatitudes. 1

The ‘gloominess is next to Godliness’ attitude is yet another reason why I do not miss the ‘good old days:’

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
(Sententiæ:2 The Citizen and the State, p. 624; H. L. Mencken; via wikiquote.org)

I think H. L. Mencken wasn’t entirely fair in his assessment of Puritans, although forbidding musical instruments in church seems excessive, and their attitude about Christmas celebrations was Grinch-like. Oddly enough, they didn’t object to alcohol in moderation.

I run into the occasional Catholic who seems to equate despondency with holiness, but that’s not what the Church teaches. Happiness is okay:

“BEATIFIC VISION: The contemplation of God in heavenly glory, a gift of God which is a constitutive element of the happiness (or beatitude) of heaven (1028, 1720).”

“HAPPINESS: Joy and beatitude over receiving the fulfillment of our vocation as creatures: a sharing in the divine nature and the vision of God. God put us into the world to know, love, and serve him, and so come to the happiness of paradise (1720).”
(Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Following Our Lord, Remembering God

This sort of happiness isn’t the giddy every-day-is-a-party sort. Following our Lord means putting up with the occasional inconvenience:

“Then he said to all, ‘If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”
(Luke 9:23)

“Every day I face death; I swear it by the pride in you (brothers) that I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
(1 Corinthians 15:31)

But in the long run — I’ve talked about that before. (November 1, 2015; October 5, 2014; September 13, 2014)

Basically, wanting to be happy is okay. Expecting to find ultimate happiness with anyone or anything other than God is unreasonable, and making pleasure-seeking my top priority is a really bad idea. (Catechism, 27, 1718-1719, 2112-2114)

On the other hand, I’m not expected to flee from pleasure.

“There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink and provide themselves with good things from their toil. Even this, I saw, is from the hand of God.
“For who can eat or drink apart from God?”
(Ecclesiastes 2:24–25)

Gluttony, Sin, and Moderation

The trick for me is learning to enjoy pleasure in moderation.

Gluttony is one of my problem areas, and a serious one. Aside from health considerations, gluttony makes the list of capital sins: sins that cause or lead to other sins. (Catechism, 1866, 2341)

Recognizing over- and under-eating as a health problem is one thing.3

But calling my habit of eating more than I should a sin? That may need some explaining: starting with what sin is.

Sin is a failure to love God. It’s “an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor….” (Catechism, 1849-1853)

The good news is that God loves me — loves us — anyway.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”
(John 3:16–17)

It gets better. About two millennia back, we got the best news humanity’s ever had. God loves us, and wants to adopt us: all of us. (Matthew 5:44–5; John 1:12–14, 3:17; Romans 8:14–17; ; Ephesians 1:3–5; Peter 2:3–4; Catechism, 1-3, 27-30, 52, 1825, 1996)

“But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,

“who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.”
(John 1:12–13)

Since I take God seriously, and decided to accept the offer, trying to act like part of the family makes sense: to me, anyway.

That doesn’t mean that I’ll always behave perfectly, and never ever do anything wrong.

Anyone who has raised kids knows that even the best child sometimes acts badly. When my son or one of my daughters misbehaved, I tried to show them what had gone wrong and how to fix it. I’m not God, so I didn’t do a perfect job. But I tried.

When I do something I shouldn’t, I try to patch things up: or should, and that’s another topic. (Catechism, 1460)

Recapping, I think sin is an offense against reason, truth, and God; and a bad idea.

That’s not even close to believing I’m one of the good guys, that God’s going to smite “sinners” who aren’t like me something fearful; and that’s yet another topic.

Where was I? Gluttony, sin, taking God seriously, right.

Eating and drinking are not sinful. Good grief, our Lord’s first miracle was providing wine for a wedding. (John 2:1–10)

God created a world that is “very good.” That hasn’t changed. Our problems started when we decided to misuse our freedom, and that’s yet again another topic. Topics. (Genesis 1:31; Catechism,299, 309–314, 385–406, 2290)

I handled my drinking problem by cutting alcohol consumption down to almost zero.

For me, that’s “moderate” drinking. But I won’t denounce folks who enjoy a pint of beer after work, or wine with their meals.

Drinking is okay. It’s getting drunk that’s a bad idea. (Sirach 31:25–31; 1 Timothy 5:23; Catechism, 2290)

Moderating my eating is harder, but I’m working on it: with some small measure of success. It’s a matter of practicing temperance.

Temperance, the Catholic version, is one of the cardinal virtues. The others are justice, prudence, and fortitude. (Catechism, 1805-1809)

Getting a Grip about Temperance


(From Nathaniel Currier, via The Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(“The Drunkard’s Progress. From the Glass to the Grave,” by Nathaniel Currier, circa 1846.)

As an American, I could think of “temperance” as the temperance movement’s anti-alcohol attitude; which led to the American Temperance Society, Carrie Nation, the Volstead Act, and Al Capone.

Folks here in central Minnesota, mostly Irish- and German-Americans, started producing Minnesota 13, a high-quality whisky. Federal agents finally burned enough buildings to slow us down: and that’s still another topic.

As a Catholic, I see “temperance” a bit differently: as a moderation of desires.

“TEMPERANCE: The cardinal moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasure and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the mastery of the will over instinct, and keeps natural desires within proper limits (1809)”
(Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Madness: Reefer and Otherwise

“Reefer Madness” enjoyed renewed popularity, starting in the 1970s, thanks to the exploitation film’s bonkers depiction of marijuana’s effects.

If you’re waiting for a rant on any side of the legalize-whatever position: you’ll have a long wait. I think any substance can be misused, but prefer rational caution to blind panic.

For example, drinking way too much coffee can induce psychosis in healthy folks, and makes it worse in folks with schizophrenia.4

That doesn’t mean that drinking coffee inevitably leads to psychosis, death, and the end of civilization as we know it.

It does suggest that there’s such a thing as too much coffee.

In my case, the limit was 12 cups of very strong coffee per day, the last one before 5:00 p.m., if I planned to sleep that night. I’m currently down to one or two per day, and I’ll get back to that — or maybe not.

About “Reefer Madness,” Demon Rum, and getting a grip: I think American culture around the mid-20th century encouraged pill-popping, legal and otherwise, as an easy way to solve complex issues.

It still does, but I think we’re getting past the uncritical ‘a pill for every problem’ attitude of my youth. The 1970 Controlled Substances Act was a milestone on that path to self-awareness.

It wasn’t just ‘those crazy kids,’ by the way. The ‘older generation’ liked their sleeping pills, happy pills, and – – – you get the idea.

Caution about pill-popping is not the same as thinking “Reefer Madness” makes sense, any more than an interest in exobiology is the same as thinking “Plan 9 From Outer Space” is a documentary. (August 2, 2015; July 31, 2015)

Making Sense

(Mis)using sleeping pills to get sleep, pep pills to clear the morning-after fog, more stimulants to get through the day, and sedatives to relax, is one problem.

Deciding that using any medicine is morally wrong is another, and potentially-lethal, problem.

It’s been a while since I read about someone who died because they, or their family, didn’t “believe in” medical treatment. It’s probably just a matter of time before a tragedy like that hits the news again.

I don’t doubt that folks who shun doctors and medicine are sincere. I’m also quite sure that they’re mistaken.

Don’t get me wrong: I rely on God for my continued existence, like every other creature. (Catechism, 301)

I don’t “believe in” medical science and technology in the sense of imagining that it’s the most important thing around, or an answer to all my problems. That’d be idolatry, and a daft decision: which does not make what we’ve learned over the last few centuries evil. (Catechism, 2292-2293, 1723)

God gave us brains, and expects us to use them. (Genesis 1:26, 2:7; Catechism, 355, 1730, 1778, 2112-2114, 2292-2295)

Using my brain, thinking about what I do and why I do it, is part of being human: or should be. So is worshiping God, and other aspects of faith. Faith and reason get along fine: including when we’re learning something new about this astounding world. (Catechism, 154-159, 283, 1730)

God is large and in charge, but I get to do some of the work myself.5 One of these days I’ll talk about secondary causes, science, and priorities. But not today. (Catechism, 302-308, 1723, 2292-2296)

My life and health are “precious gifts” from God. I’m expected to take care of both: within reason. (Catechism, 2288-2291)

Catechism, 2291, starts by saying “the use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” If I stopped reading there: that would be a very bad idea. The rest of that paragraph says that using/abusing drugs “except on strictly therapeutic grounds” is wrong.

I can’t — and won’t — argue with that, considering what happened to folks like Jackie Curtis, Hillel Slovak, and Lester Bangs.

But I’ll keep taking prescribed medications to control my diabetes, hypertension, and neurological glitches. The comparatively good health I enjoy is still a “precious gift,” one I intend to maintain. Within reason.

More about moderation and getting a grip, from A Catholic Citizen in America’s Blogger version:

1 Depending on how you break them out, there are eight or nine Beatitudes — blessed are:

  1. The poor in spirit
  2. Those who mourn
  3. The meek
  4. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
  5. The merciful
  6. The pure in heart
  7. The peacemakers
  8. Those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake
    • You when men revile you and persecute you … on God’s account

    (From Matthew 5:3–12)

This is “…the heart of Jesus’ preaching….” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1716-1724)

2 I’m not sure if “Sententiæ” is a generic term used in this case as a proper noun, an unpublished document, or a document which was published and not particularly well-known these days. This is the closest I came to finding an explanation:

“…I have a copy of The Vintage Mencken, but I’m interpreting what it says on p. 231 a bit differently. For the sake of others who are reading this, it should be explained that the quote is part of a group entitled ‘Sententiae,’ with the following introduction:

” ‘These maxims, epigrams and apothegms cover a long range in time. The earliest were first printed in The Smart Set in 1912; the latest come from notebooks never printed at all. In 1916 I published a collection under the title of A Little Book in C Major. Four years later it was taken, in part, into a revised edition of A Book of Burlesques, and there survived until that book went out of print in the late 30’s.’…”
(Talk:H. L. Mencken, Wikiquote.org)

3 Overeating and obesity, the medical side:

4 I am not making that up:

  • “Caffeine-induced psychosis.”
    Hedges, Woon, Hoopes; CNS Spectrums (March 2009); via US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

5 God is in charge; and God’s creatures, including me, get to help.

“God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.”
(Catechism, 306)

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Everyone’s Life Matters

Posted on July 9, 2016 by Brian H. Gill


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

This has been a bad week.

Philando Castile, cafeteria supervisor at J.J. Hill Montessori Magnet School, was killed after two police officers had him stop his vehicle: allegedly as part of a traffic stop.

That happened in Falcon Heights, a suburb of Saint Paul, Minnesota; near Como Park Zoo and Conservatory.

I was quite upset about the incident when I heard about it on radio news the next day. Philando Castile had apparently done exactly what he should have done: followed instructions of the police officer.

Later Thursday, I heard and read that someone had started shooting police officers at a demonstration in Dallas, Texas.

So far, six people are dead as a result of that incident: five police officers, and the person who apparently killed them. Seven officers and two civilians are still alive, but injured. I was quite upset about that, too.

Life, Death, and Dignity

I’m still upset about these deaths: not because some of the folks died from bullet wounds, or because one died after a robot carried an explosive charge to his position.

I regret that these folks are dead, because all human life is sacred. Everyone’s life is sacred: no matter where the person’s ancestors lived, or what the person did. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258, 2268–2283)

That’s because we’re all people, with equal dignity: no matter where we are, who we are, or how we act. (Catechism, 360, 1700–1706, 1932–1933, 1935)

Apparently the person who killed the police officers in Dallas did so because he was upset over unjustified killings committed by police officers. That’s understandable, but being upset doesn’t make killing someone okay. (Catechism, 2268–2269)

Police apparently tried to talk with the person who killed folks in Dallas, learned why he was upset, and failed to convince him that not killing them was a good idea.

That is when they decided to send in a robot with explosives, as an alternative to risking their own lives in an effort to capture him.

I grieve that the killer is dead; but, given what I have read, taking his life seems reasonable. As I said, all human life is sacred. But “legitimate defense of persons and societies” allows the taking of life: if there really is no other alternative. (Catechism, 2263–2267, 2307–2317)

Finally, something I’ve said before, a lot, and will almost certainly say again.

I should love God, love my neighbors, see everybody as my neighbor, and treat others as I want to be treated. Everybody, no exceptions. (Matthew 5:43–44, 7:12, 22:36–40, Mark 12:28–31; Luke 6:31 10:25–27, 29–37)

More, from A Catholic Citizen in America’s Blogger version:

Responses:

Background:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

One Saturday Afternoon in Minnesota

Posted on July 2, 2016 by Brian H. Gill


(“Vastness” – posters, art prints, greeting cards, and postcards available on DeviantArt.com.)

I’m getting perilously close to writing the first post for A Catholic Citizen in America’s re-launch.

I’d come down with ‘nothing serious’ when the folks who run my earlier A Catholic Citizen in America blog service decided to start ‘protecting’ folks from image files. (“Technical Issues: and an Apology” (May 6, 2016))

They almost have a point: some image file formats can be altered in malicious ways, and it’s probably easier to keep bureaucrats and excessively-anxious folks happy by insisting that all image files be stored on expensively-maintained secure servers.

However, Blogger’s improvements pretty well scrambled the way I’d set up to keep track of the (safe) images I use in my posts. I’m still not happy about that: but Blogger is a free service, so I can’t complain much. Not reasonably.

Besides, I’d decided, somewhere around 2014, to re-launch my blogs on one of my domains, using WordPress software. I decided that I’d take another look at WordPress, and start setting up the ‘new’ blogs. More accurately, that’s what I tried doing.

I spent the rest of May and part of June getting over ‘nothing serious,’ I still don’t know what it was: something like a bad cold, only meaner.

Anyway, my brain started de-fogging itself around the first week of June, and I’ve been getting overwhelmed with WordPress tutorials ever since.

Deciding that I really should use the tutorials was a big step, and that’s another topic.

Meanwhile, I’ve been making one bit of digital art — like “Vastness” there — each week; and learning enough to get started. Today, for example, I learned that WordPress works on UTC, “Earth time,” and I’ve talked about that before in the old blog. (A Catholic Citizen in America (Blogger)(July 10, 2015))

I might get something ready in time for tomorrow morning: which is just a few hours away on the WordPress clock. More likely, though, the first scheduled post here will show up a week from tomorrow. Or maybe, if I get my ducks in a row, next Friday.

Posted in Being a Writer, Being an Artist | Tagged , , | Leave a comment