It’s not what I’m writing about this week, but an article in TechCrunch about a prototype space plane got my attention. And reminded me of a promising development of the 1920s that didn’t work out.
About a century back, someone named Max Valier had a good idea.
The Austrian physicist thought that transatlantic air service would be economically feasible.
He also thought that step-by-step addition of rocket engines to airliner design could lead first to vehicles that reach Earth orbit, and later make interplanetary trips.
He died when a rocket engine exploded.
Time passed, and now an American company, Radian Aerospace, is using a similar incremental approach. I think they have a good chance of finally providing affordable service to low Earth orbit, and beyond.
“Radian Aerospace has moved one step closer to achieving the ‘holy grail’ of spaceflight: a reusable space plane that can take-off from an airfield and land on a runway like a conventional airplane. The startup just announced completion of a series of ground tests in Abu Dhabi earlier this summer.
“The tests were completed with a sub-scale prototype flight vehicle that the company is calling PFV01. The main purpose of the testing was to generate data on how the vehicle would fly and handle, and to compare this data to simulations the company’s been doing over the last several years. While the vehicle did not fly, it did perform a series of small hops on the runway, executives told TechCrunch in a recent interview.
“PFV01 is much smaller than the final vehicle at around 15 feet long, but the data still helps inform key pieces of the final design and flight control systems, like where the landing gear should be located, or where the center of gravity should be to maximize stability midair, cofounder CTO Livingston Holder explained….”
The Radian Aerospace space plane isn’t, I think, the ideal design — since it’ll be launched from a rocket-powered rail sled. But it still strikes me as a good idea.
I don’t know why they’re doing their test flights in Abu Dhabi. Maybe it’s because getting permission for each flight is easier there, and that’s another topic.
Chuck Kennedy’s photo: statue of Abraham Lincoln, VIPs walking past. (August 28, 2013)
Another election is looming, so I’m reviewing how being a Catholic affects how I vote.
I’ll mention what the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) calls the “Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching”, share some links, and talk about something Pope Francis said. Along with, as usual, whatever else comes to mind.
Theodor Geisel’s “Vote Here (If you can afford it)” cartoon. (1942)
I’m an American citizen, not an exempt organization as defined by IRS Section 501(c)(3);1 so I could endorse some candidate.
I could also say that all ‘real’ Catholics must support some candidate or party. I’ve run into that assertion in my social media feeds: and it’s not the Chosen Candidate of the Almighty you might expect.
I could, but I won’t.
I’m resigned to the idea that, barring some bizarre twist of events, either the Democratic or Republican candidate will be my country’s next president.
My enthusiasm for either candidate — it’s a bit like that of Mark Twain’s hypothetical readers of the Deerslayer tale:
“…10. They require that the author shall make the reader feel a deep interest in the personages of his tale and in their fate; and that he shall make the reader love the good people in the tale and hate the bad ones. But the reader of the Deerslayer tale dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.…” (“Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offences” , Mark Twain (1895) via Gutenberg.org) [emphasis mine]
Love and Good Ideas
About “… hate the bad ones … all get drowned together…”: maybe I’d feel more hyped about American politics and politicians, if I wasn’t in my mid-70s, and not entirely healthy. Besides, I haven’t been on the same page as The Establishment since my teens.
But more importantly, I can’t hate people. More accurately, I shouldn’t.
I’ve talked about this before, so feel free to skip ahead to Political Venom: It’s Not New. Or get a cup of coffee, take a nap, sort your socks, whatever.
Hating my neighbor is a bad idea and I shouldn’t do it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2302-03)
Since I took God up on that offer, acting as if loving neighbors and seeing everyone as a neighbor makes sense. It’s often not easy, but — it’s still a good idea.
So is doing what I can to support the common good. Seems to me it’s a long time since I said what the Church means by “the common good”.
“1906 By common good is to be understood ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.‘ The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:
“1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as ‘the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.’
“1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.
“1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.” (Catechism, 1906-1909; quotes translated from “Gaudium et spes” , Second Vatican Council, Bl. Pope Paul VI (December 7, 1965)) [emphasis mine]
Oddly enough, nothing in that part of the Catechism says that everyone must agree with me about everything, and that’s another topic. Topics.
Being a Catholic Citizen
One more thing: I can be an American and a Catholic, but being an American isn’t required for being a Catholic.
The Catholic Church is καθολικός, universal: united and diverse, not tied to one era or region. I’m not forced into a particular cultural mold.
The heart of our faith, the Eucharist, our re-presentation of the Last Supper, hasn’t changed in two millennia — not the essentials. Details in how we celebrate vary, according to local culture. This is okay. (Matthew 26: 17–30; Mark 14: 12–26; Luke 22:7: 20; John 13:1–14:31; Catechism, 1145-1149, 1202-1209, 1322-1419, 1668)
And that’s yet another topic.
The point is that, although I live in a federal republic, I could live in a country with a monarchy, or any form of government, and still be a Catholic.2
We’re not told that one particular political system is the “right” one.
Provided that a local regime works for the common good, and the citizens are okay with how their country’s authorities work, Catholics can live with any system. (Catechism, 1901)
Concern for the “common good” involves balancing individual and community needs, having respect for folks, and that’s yet again another topic. (Catechism, 1905-1912)
Like it or not, part of my job as an American citizen is keeping the common good in mind when I vote.
Political Venom: It’s Not New
Jefferson Davis, President of the CSA: as imagined in Harper’s Weekly. (March 15, 1862)
Thinking about the common good, or pretty much anything else, is easier when I filter out the verbal abuse that passes for political discourse these days.
I’d be a whole lot more upset about the behavior of my country’s authorities and their minions, if I didn’t recognize today’s mudslinging as a long-standing national tradition.
Mind you, I think it’s a tradition we could do without — but it’s part of what we’re stuck with at the moment.
Now, about that picture of a giant skeleton wearing a crown. It’s from the March 15, 1862, issue of Harper’s Weekly. The American Civil War had been in progress for just over a year when the magazine showed its readers how they should feel about the CSA’s president.
CSA: That’s Confederate States of America. They lost, the Union won, and it’s not hard to tell which side Harper’s Weekly was on. No surprises there: the magazine was published in New York City.3
Malevolent Memes of Yesteryear
Benedict Arnold, Satan, and Jefferson Davis: as imagined by Oscar Henry Harpel & Burgoo Zac. (1865)
It’s been 159 years and a few months since my country’s civil war ended. We’re still cleaning up the mess, although we’ve been making headway. My opinion, and that’s still another topic. Or maybe not so much.
The Civil War ended on May 26, 1865, the year when O. H. Harpel and Burgoo Zac published “A Proper Family Re-Union”: that cartoon showing Benedict Arnold, Satan, and Jefferson Davis brewing “treason toddy”. Again, not hard to tell which side Harpel and Zac backed.
I don’t know whether O. H. Harpel and Burgoo Zac are two different people, or an individual’s name and a pseudonym.
I’m guessing it’s two people, since a Charles Porah, along with Burgoo Zac, gets credit for another cartoon: “Freedom’s immortal triumph! / Finale of the Jeff Davis Die-nasty”.
The Library of Congress describes “Freedom’s immortal…” as “[a] vindictive Northern fantasy on the aftermath of the Civil War”. I’m inclined to agree with that assessment.
I haven’t found out whether either or both were stand-alone lithographs, part of one or more larger collections — or something completely different.
Union supporters didn’t have a monopoly on nastiness. I’ve mentioned Alfred Gale’s broadsides, and malignant virtue, before.4
“… ‘calcine its clods and set its prisoners free. There are times, Charles, when even the unimaginative decency of my brother and the malignant virtue of his wife appear to me admirable. I could hardly say more.’…” (Lord Peter Wimsey, in “Murder Must Advertise” , Dorothy L. Sayers (1933) via Gutenberg.org)
“…counting every thing which the most malignant virtue could shrink from, I have culled eighty lines. Eighty lines out of nine thousand!…” (“The Good Gray Poet. A Vindication” , William Douglas O’Connor (1866) via Gutenberg.org)
Finally, before getting to Prohibition, principles, and something Pope Francis said: there’s something familiar about these 19th-century cartoons and broadsides. For me, at any rate.
With their eye-catching graphics and quotable slogans, they remind me of today’s social media memes. Which, arguably, they were: in the “social media” of their day.
Principles, Priorities — and Prohibition, a Personal View
Oliver Herford’s cartoon, warning that Demon Rum leads to laudanum, opium, cocaine, …. Life magazine. (June 26, 1919)
I’ve put links to “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”, and other resources, in the footnotes.5
It’s been one of those weeks: so I’ll summarize the “Seven Themes of Catholic social teaching”, plus a few links — and then talk about why earnest folks with good intentions worry me.
Remembering Prohibition: High Ideals and Speakeasies
Oliver Herford’s cartoon (above) showing the dreadfully diabolical dangers of Demon Rum, and Cesare’s “The genii of intolerance / A dangerous ally for the cause of women suffrage” (right), present two views of Prohibition.
Folks pushing prohibition were, I think, sincere. They were also persistent and, at least temporarily, successful.
Wrecking my country’s alcohol industry became national policy in 1919, with the Eighteenth Amendment to our Constitution.
From 1920 to 1933, we witnessed the social and spiritual benefits of speakeasies, moonshine, and bootlegging.
The Constitution’s Twenty-first Amendment put an end to that noble and high-minded experiment. I think my country’s Prohibition binge was a stupid idea.
I’ll admit to a bias, and that’s even more topics.6
I’m bringing Prohibition up now, because I think it’s an example of a law that was just simply reeking of high ideals and good intentions — and a cautionary tale, showing what can happen when high ideals get shoved down our throats.
Particularly high ideals aimed folks with the ‘wrong’ ancestors, and I’m wandering off-topic again.
I don’t think any of America’s subcultures has a monopoly on stupid ideas.
Now, finally, I’m getting to something Pope Francis said on his flight back to Rome, September 13, 2024: with a Catholic News Service video and an excerpt from USCCB News.
Pope Francis and Our Choices
I’d have preferred hearing the pope speak in my native language, but like I said earlier: the Church is καθολικός, universal. I’m just glad we have folks who translated what he said.
The following excerpt is longer than most that I share.
I’m including all seven paragraphs because I think they do a good job, explaining why the Church says that killing innocent people isn’t nice and we shouldn’t do it. And why treating foreigners as if they were people is a good idea.
“…A U.S. television reporter asked him about the choice Catholic voters face between Harris, who supports legalized abortion, and Trump, who wants to severely restrict immigration and has said he wants to deport tens of thousands of migrants.
“Both attitudes ‘are against life: the one who wants to throw out the migrants and the one who kills children,’ the pope said. ‘Both are against life.’
“In the Old Testament, he said, God’s people are repeatedly reminded to care for ‘widows, orphans and the stranger,’ that is, the migrant. They are the three that the People of Israel must protect. The one who does not care for migrants is lacking; it is a sin.’
“And ‘to have an abortion is to kill a human being. Whether or not you like the word, it is killing,’ the pope said. ‘The Catholic Church does not allow abortion because it is killing. It is assassination. And we must be clear about that.’
“Pope Francis was asked if there were situations when a Catholic could vote for a candidate who was in favor of abortion.
“‘In political morality, generally, they say not voting is wrong; one must vote, and one must choose the lesser evil’ in accordance with one’s conscience, he said.
“Abortion and care for migrants are both issues the U.S. bishops urge Catholics to consider when voting. In their document, ‘Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,’ however, they say, ‘The threat of abortion remains our pre-eminent priority because it directly attacks our most vulnerable and voiceless brothers and sisters and destroys more than a million lives per year in our country alone.’…” [emphasis mine]
I suspect that some criticism of Pope Francis is rooted in his habit of expressing ideas simply and directly. That, and repeating what the Church has been saying for millennia.
This unseemly lack of either periphrastic prolixity or prudent prevarication leaves precious little room for weaseling out of inconvenient principles.
I don’t see a problem with thinking both that human life, all human life, matters; and that immigrants — or the other party’s candidate — aren’t existential threats.
That’s one part of Catholic belief I didn’t have trouble accepting: no great virtue, given my personal history, and that’s — you guessed it — another topic.
Recapping what I’ve said before, human life is sacred, a gift from God: every human life, each human life. It doesn’t matter how young or old, healthy or sick, someone is. A corollary is that suicide is a really bad idea, and I shouldn’t do it. (Catechism, 2258-2317)
The Church also says that “[t]he more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin”; and that immigrants are people, with rights and responsibilities. (Catechism, 2241)
Doing His Job — and Doing Mine
I haven’t run into it lately, but another excuse for getting upset about what Pope Francis says involves feelings about “separation of church and state”.
The idea that church and state shouldn’t get too cozy got traction in the 17th century, and is arguably among the most extreme contrasts between today’s Western civilization and the ancient world.7 I’ll talk about that one of these days, but not this week.
Since I’m a Catholic, I think that the Church is not — and should not be — a political party, and should not meddle with political freedom. (Catechism, 2245)
I also think that part of the Church’s job is giving us a heads-up when our politicking gets out of hand. (Catechism, 2246)
“2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.'” (Catechism, 2246) (quotation from Gaudium et spes, 76)
The “moral judgments” in that excerpt include, but are not limited to, zipper issues that occasionally make headlines. In this context, in my dialect, “ethics” would be a better term.
And that is why I’m not shocked, outraged, and incensed, that Pope Francis dared imply that killing innocent people isn’t a Constitutional right. And that immigrants are people.
It helps that I think attacking “our most vulnerable and voiceless brothers and sisters” isn’t nice and we shouldn’t do it.
Now, wrapping this up.
Voting matters.
Voting for a candidate who might erode our current right to kill folks who can’t defend themselves — might be preferable to voting for one who supports that right.
Not that any politico would express the idea that way: and might not even think of “abortion rights” in those terms. Euphemisms have, arguably, become so deeply ingrained — I’m going to stop now.
I would vastly prefer not having the choices we face in the looming election.
But my preferences will not change our reality.
So I’ll pray, hope: and vote.
There ARE Bright Sides
Library of Congress Main Library/Jefferson Building stacks. Shawn Miller/Library of Congress photo. (2022)
On the whole, I like being an American.
That’s partly because I know our history, and how it fits into humanity’s long and continuing story.
And partly because I’ve talked with folks who decided that they wanted to raise their families here: and risked what they had, to live and die in America.
Remembering that I’m the descendant of immigrants who did the same thing doesn’t hurt, either.
And, despite the vituperation, invective, and crazy notions screaming in my news feed — I’m convinced that America is more than any of my country’s political parties, and more than our government. We’re also, I think, better than all of that lot put together.
I think there are individuals who are both involved in politics and trying to make the best of a bad situation. Identifying those individuals: that’s the tricky part.
Individuals working for the common good and dealing with entrenched zealots is nothing new: and something I won’t try discussing today.
The good news is that a great many of us are not running for public office, helping someone run for public office, or on the staff of agencies set up by public officials.
And the rules we live with often let us help each other. This, I think, is a good thing.
Another good thing — brace yourself, here comes an old guy’s reminiscence.
If you’re reading this, you have access to a considerable fraction of humanity’s archives.
The End of Civilization as We Know It — As Usual
Dik Browne’s “It may be the end of civilization as we know it.” (February 25, 1973) used w/o permission.
I grew up in Fargo-Moorhead, with two colleges on one side of the river, and a university on the other. With libraries in each of those places, I wasn’t exactly lacking access to knowledge and opinions.
But now, with a pretty good Internet connection and research skills developed back when card catalogs were the best thing in information access tech?
I like it. A lot.
I’ve seen the situation described as “information overload”. But I don’t see it that way.
For me, it’s more like finally having an interface with enough bandwidth.
And it’s nice, not depending on analogs of Harper’s Weekly for information and opinions. Although I can see how someone who liked the old status quo might feel threatened by a changing world.
I’ve talked about America, living with less-than-ideal situations, and making sense, before:
Last Sunday’s Gospel reading was about Jesus healing a man who couldn’t hear or speak.1 So that’s what Fr. Greg talked about: along with how it ties in how we’re living today.
A tip of the hat to Fr. Greg, for letting me make a transcript of his homily:
The healing of the deaf and the mute. This man who cannot hear, and he’s not able to speak.
It’s a very physically graphic image we have today: more graphic than almost all of the other healings in the whole Bible.
This one gives more concrete sensational images for us.
In fact, this healing is more complex than most of the rest of them, in that it takes Jesus seven steps for this healing as he goes through this.
(1) One-On-One Healing
So the first step is, he takes the man off by himself. Now, in most of the healings, somebody comes to him and he just heals him right there in the public view.
This one, he takes off by himself. He’s not doing it for show.
He’s doing it because he — everyone he heals, he love singularly and individually — but for some reason, this one needs to be by himself. And Jesus knows that this is something required for that man. And so it’s a one-on-one healing.
(2) Touching His Ears
The second thing Jesus does is, he puts his fingers into his ears.
When I had little nieces and nephews I — maybe some of you have done this, when you ‘poke your finger through your head’, and you ‘scratch the inside of your cheek’ — that’s not what Jesus was doing. Okay?
But he touched his ears. There’s something really physical about that. In order to heal his ears. There was a direct contact.
(3) “Unusual to Us” — Jesus Spits
The third thing Jesus does, which is unusual to us, is: he spits.
Now, in the ancient world, back before we had ointments for everything, lotions for everything, and oils, and all this other stuff, saliva was perceived as something therapeutic.
You know, you might even think of a dog’s saliva, that’s actually helps clean out wounds better than our own mouths. They have cleaner mouths than we do, right? So that saliva was seen as something therapeutic.
And I don’t want you to think he’s spitting in the guy’s mouth. He’s not. He’s spitting on his own finger.
(4) A Second Touch
And then he touches — he touches — the tongue. Almost as if to give it a light pinch. Right?
And so again, a second direct touch: once for the ears, once for the tongue.
(5) Jesus Looks Up to Heaven
The fifth step he takes is, he looks up to Heaven. Now what is that a gesture of?
Well, I know what it’s a gesture of for me. When I look up to Heaven, it’s a gesture of prayer: “oh God, help”; or “oh God, praise your Holy Name”; or “oh, God, you are more glorious than the stars”. It’s some kind of a gesture of prayer.
So Jesus is not just healing this man by himself. He’s interceding for the man. He’s being an intercessor. Calling upon the Father and the Holy Spirit to bring healing with him.
(6) He Groans
The fifth [!] thing he does, and this is the only place in all of the Gospels this word is ever used, he groans. He groans. Jesus groans. He’s looking up to Heaven, and he groans: “ooh“.
Now a groan throughout the Old Testament — there’s several different indications — it’s always got a negative connotation. Like something is so bad, it’s unbearable, kind of groan.
I’m not sure that’s what Jesus is doing. He probably doesn’t like at all that this man is so deficient in his faculties. He’s groaning. But St. Paul gives us a clue.
St. Paul tells us that we are to pray with inexpressible groanings — I think he’s talking about the gift of tongues — but he says with inexpressible groanings: that the Holy Spirit will intercede for us.2
So he’s calling on the Holy Spirit. That groan is a calling on the Holy Spirit to intercede with him for this man.
Huh! Have you ever groaned? Maybe after a long day. Something like that. He groans.
(7) Ephphatha!
And the seventh thing he finally does, is, he says “ephphatha!” — come out! or “be opened!” I should say. “Ephphatha!” “Be opened!”
Now that he has interceded, and he has done the touching for that healing, now he commands. Now that power of the Spirit and the Father with him are unified with him in order to for him to command the healing: “be opened!”
He has authority to command.
You have probably never thought to command healing.
But do you not groan when somebody is sick, or injured? Especially if they’re in the hospital?
Do you not look up to Heaven? Like him? Do you not touch the place that might be injured? Maybe it’s a broken bone, or maybe it’s a rib. You’re gentle, but you might touch that.
Have you ever thought that you are so filled with God’s Holy Spirit through baptism, and through prayer, that you would have the authority, like Jesus and with Jesus, to say “be healed!”
I’m thinking most of us have not done that. Oh, we have such little faith. That’s what Jesus does. And in another part of the Gospel he says ‘you will do greater things than I’ — when the Holy Spirit comes.3 Maybe we need to be more bold in our intercession, and even commanding that healing.
But he says “ephphatha!” — “be opened!”
The Purpose of the Messiah
You know, what I find really interesting about this passage is: he just heals a man so that he can hear and speak, and then he tells the man, ‘now don’t tell anybody’.
‘You just gave me a voice so I can speak, and now you’re saying don’t tell anybody!’
What’s going on with that? That’s — that’s just weird. Okay?
Jesus tells ‘don’t tell anyone’, because he doesn’t want them to just focus in on these physical healings.
In the Gospel of Mark, it’s called the messianic secrets.
He uses for the first half of the Gospel, Jesus tells people ‘don’t tell anybody’; the second half of the Gospel, he doesn’t say that any more — because the second half of the Gospel, now he is revealing what’s going to happen to himself at the Cross, which is the healing of — taking away of sins.
It’s the purpose of the Messiah: to have the forgiveness of sins. And once the fullness of the purpose is being revealed, then he doesn’t tell ’em to not say any more.
So many times, people can focus in on what is sensational, instead of on what is most important.
Okay. So I went through all of this.
Sidon, the Decapolis, and a World of Gentiles
One of the other things that’s kind of important here is — he did this in the region of Sidon and the Decapolis, the Sea of Galilee. He does this in gentile territory.
He doesn’t do this where the Jews are, he does this where the gentiles are, as if to say through his action ‘I mean to save the whole world, not just Jews. I mean to help the whole world know me and love me’.
Because the gentiles, they are deaf to the voice of God. They do not have the revelation of God. And the gentiles, they’re not able to speak about God’s mercy and compassion, because they’re not able to hear the message.
The gentiles are deaf and mute.
But Jesus is giving that indication that there will be a day: when all of the world, the gentiles as well as the Jews, ‘will have their ears opened to my revelation’, his resurrection, and also be able to speak of it as you and I do so freely, in our lives, in our country, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Okay, so: father, where are you going with all of this?
My gosh.
Deafness as a Cultural Preference
Just point-blank, we got an election coming up. But we are living in culture that is more like the gentiles than like the Jews.
We are living in a culture — not every segment, or every pocket of the culture, but by and large — in our music, in our movies, by large, in our culture, in our magazines, in our conversations, in our schools, in our government: everywhere we look in our culture, there is a silencing of God’s voice.
God’s voice is less and less welcome in our culture.
Our culture desires to be deaf to his voice.
And for those who are brave, and those who do speak out; sometimes boldly, sometimes a little less — they’re getting cancelled. They’re not being allowed to speak. There is real censorship happening throughout many ways of communication.
Our culture is becoming deaf and mute: to God’s voice, to what God desires.
I’m just going to zero in on one thing, and maybe mention a couple others. But —
Babies, Birth Rates, Families: and Statistics
I was listening to an article or a column or something like that on the news.
They were saying that there were 3.6 million babies born last year. 3.6 million babies born last year. Sounds like a lot, but it’s the fewest number born of babies born in a single year since 1979. There weren’t even that many people in America in 1979.
Holy smokes, that’s crazy.
The birth rate today is an average of 1.6 babies per woman. Average of 1.6 babies per woman today. The scientists around the globe will say for a healthy, sustainable society, that rate needs to be 2.1 or more.
2.1 is the replacement value, so to speak. Because sometimes children die, or sometimes people die young. So it needs to be 2.1 Not just 2.
Wow.
Just for comparison, in the 1950s, at the height of our American birth rate, it was 3.4 per woman. Wow, what a drastic change.
You know, we are so called to be pro-life. But not just pro-life: pro-family.
Our culture is tearing our families apart. It’s trying to confuse us on what is a real family. What is the nuclear family? What is the family God intended?
Now, we don’t all have the ideal family. I don’t have the idea family, either.
But we know the ideal family is mom, dad, and children. Ideally.
How can we be more pro-family, more pro-life, more pro-freedom?
The Greatest Blessings on Earth
You see, we have a society that is more and more failing to value children. We have a society that is more and more at risk of losing its sense of purpose, its sense of continuity, as in propagating ourselves through children.
Our sense of responsibility to the common good is being depleted by the culture we’re in. The culture we’re in is growing more and more anti-family, anti-life. It’s a culture that views children more as a burden than as a blessing.
Not everyone in the culture, not every pocket of the culture, but at large, our culture is going that direction: where we’re viewing children as burdens, instead of blessings.
Children who are present, I want you to know: you are greatest blessings on earth. God knit you in your mothers’ wombs,4 and he loves you, and we love you so much.
Valuing Children
You see, children make us better people.
Anybody who has children will tell you: they call us to be more loving, they call us to be more patient — oh, do they call us to be patient — they call us to be more caring; they call us to be more virtuous. They call us to out of ourselves to think about them more than we think about ourself.
Children help us be better people. Children help us be a better society.
So how can we more celebrate life? How can we more realize that our babies are blessings? That our children are gifts? And that they give us hope for the future?
We’re being told more and more that we’re entering a phase of society that is becoming more hopeless, despairing more. Maybe that’s ’cause we’re devaluing children.
If we would love and respect our children more in the eyes of God, as a culture — I think you guys are doing pretty good — but as a culture: wow, that would make a difference.
Looking Ahead
Did you know that 44% of the young people today are considering not having children? Almost 50% of America is not considering to have children.
That should be raising our eyebrows. Especially when God himself says “be fruitful and multiply”. It’s one of our purposes. One of our first and greatest purposes.5
Did you know that 23% of our young people give a reason that they’re concerned — they’re too concerned about climate change to want to bring children into this world.
Hmm. I don’t understand that whole connection. But something to be thought about. Hm. Pretty crazy.
Planning Ahead, and Praying
But how can we, with the little bit of influence we have — in our voices, with our families, not only with the election box, or the computer nowadays, but in our schools, in our school boards, in our day cares, in our society; how can we celebrate life more?
There’s so much that could be said.
My point for us today, though, is — take it to prayer. Where are we being deaf to the voice of God? Where are we being mute? Too afraid to speak out what is true, right, and holy?
Let’s ask God for a fresh outpouring of that Holy Spirit. That all of us can be more courageous: to speak up — the great value of life — and to speak up in order to save our nation from catastrophe.
God love you. God love us all. Let’s have hope. We know that he’s in charge, he’s in control ultimately, so let’s stay close to him.
Video: Gospel Reading and Homily at St. Paul’s, Sauk Centre, MN; September 8, 2024
Gospel reading for Sunday, September 9, 2024:
“Again he left the district of Tyre and went by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, into the district of the Decapolis. And people brought to him a deaf man who had a speech impediment and begged him to lay his hand on him. He took him off by himself away from the crowd. He put his finger into the man’s ears and, spitting, touched his tongue; then he looked up to heaven and groaned, and said to him, ‘Ephphatha!’ (that is, ‘Be opened!’) And [immediately] the man’s ears were opened, his speech impediment was removed, and he spoke plainly. He ordered them not to tell anyone. But the more he ordered them not to, the more they proclaimed it.'” (Mark 7:31–37)
As I said a couple weeks back, this isn’t what I’ll be talking about this week.
But the SpaceX Polaris Dawn mission is a big deal. It’s a commercial mission, a test flight: there’s more about it on the Polaris Dawn Wikipedia page.
I’ve been watching this video while eating lunch:
After that, I’ll get back to getting this week’s ‘Saturday’ post ready.
I’ve talked, briefly, about Polaris Dawn before; and, not-briefly, about space exploration.
Instead of the usual ‘more stuff’ link list, here’s a link to the space exploration tag; and you can check out A Catholic Citizen in America’s Tag Cloud.
Koh-i-Noor: Diamond of Destiny, Slayer of Sultans and Shahs
The Hoh-i-Noor Diamond, at the Great Exhibition in London; Illustrated London News. (1851)
I’ll say this for England of the mid-19th century. Folks writing marketing copy weren’t shy.
Take the 1951 world’s fair in London for example: the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, or Crystal Palace Exhibition.
The “crystal” palace was some 60,000 panes of plate glass held together by 4,000 tons of iron, some unspecified amount of wood, and that’s another topic for another time.1
The Great Exhibition’s Crystal Palace and exhibits actually were impressive.
“The Diamond Does Not Satisfy”
Crystal Palace transept, lithograph of a watercolor. (1851)
The Industrial Revolution had been in progress for nearly a century. New technology had been shifting everyday priorities from avoiding starvation to choosing home furnishings.
But I get the impression that the event’s advertising hype got out of hand.
“The Koh-i-Noor is not the solitary occupant of the formidable cage and safe which has been provided for it by Chubb. On either side shine two ‘lesser lights,’ and the whole collection, like other radiant bodies, descends into darkness when the time for its exhibition has closed, and emerges again from its cast-iron prison when it is proper that the public should see it” (The Times (May 3, 1851) via “Henry Cole and the Koh-i-Noor Diamond“, Nicholas Smith, Blog, The V&A (August 22, 2017)) [emphasis mine]
A month and a half later, a great many folks at the Great Exhibition had seen the 105.6 carat diamond: and been underwhelmed.
Changing the Koh-i-Nor’s display, this time with special lighting, helped. But a diamond weighing about three quarters of an ounce — it simply isn’t all that large.
“After all the work which has been made about that celebrated diamond our readers will be rather surprised to hear that many people find a difficulty in bringing themselves to believe, from its external appearance, that it is anything but a piece of common glass.” (The Times (June 13, 1851) via “Henry Cole and the Koh-i-Noor Diamond“, Nicholas Smith, Blog, The V&A (August 22, 2017)) [emphasis mine]
And, impressive as their physical properties are, diamonds won’t sparkle spectacularly unless they’ve been properly cut and polished. Even then, you won’t get your money’s worth unless the lighting’s right.
The Koh-i-Nor’s old-style Mughal cut didn’t help. It — my opinion — does a good job of making a stone seem massive. But it’s not good for creating that quivering-rainbow light show my branch of Western civilization likes.
Somebody at The Times touched on that, and pointed out what the Great Exhibition folks should have done. In The Times’ opinion.
“The Koh-i-Noor is at present decidedly the ‘Lion of the Exhibition.’ A mysterious interest appears to be attached to it, and now that so many precautions have been resorted to, and so much difficulty attends it’s inspection, the crowd is enormously enhanced, and the policemen at either end of the covered entrance have much trouble in restraining the struggling and impatient multitude. For some hours yesterday there were never less than couple of hundred persons waiting their turn of admission, and yet after all, the diamond does not satisfy. Either from the imperfect cutting or the difficulty of placing the lights advantageously, or the immovability of the stone itself, which should be made to revolve on it’s [!] axis, few catch any of the brilliant rays, it reflects when viewed at a particular angle.” (The Times ([?] [?], 1851) via Koh-i-Noor Diamond, InternetStones.com) [emphasis mine]
Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband, had the Koh-i-Noor re-cut as an oval brilliant: that’s the spinning-top shape I associate with diamonds.2 His apparent motives make sense to me, since the diamond sparkles more now, although there’s less of it.
Doom of Afrasiab
The Koh-i-Noor diamond’s story begins back when Narmer was running both upper and lower Egypt.
To the east, artisans whose names have long been forgotten wrought fine statuettes which the rich still treasure.
Meanwhile, the great king Afrasiab wore two magnificent diamonds: Mountain of Light and Ocean of Light.
“…Mountain of light! The Kohinoor. First worn in the crown, perhaps, of a great ruler in India five thousand years ago. The Koh-i-nur, or Mountain of Light, was next heard of as a great companion to the Darya-i-Nor, the Sea of Light, in the scabbard of Afrasiab around 3,000 B.C….” (“Jewels and the woman“ ; “The romance, magic and art of feminine adornment” ; The Diamonds; Marianne Ostier (2022) via Project Gutenberg)
There’s quite a story about Afrasiab. Several different stories, I’m guessing, since I read that he’s an Iranian king and a foe of Iran. Plus, it seems that he’s “mythical”: which by this time is true.
As for being an Iranian king: Afrasiab ruled Turan, a country that’s not there any more, east of the Caspian Sea and north of the Pamir Mountains.
***
An Arthurian/Washingtonian Aside
I get the impression, after spending too much time trying to learn Afrasiab’s story, that he’s an Iranian analog to England’s King Arthur. Or maybe Mordred, or Morgan le Fay.
I also suspect that I’m like a hypothetical someone living around the year 5500, ferreting out facts from stories about King Arthur and Washington’s Quest for the Cherry Tree of Truth — which were written by some imaginative chap in the 25th century.
***
Back to the Koh-i-Noor
Let’s see what happened after this mythical king started wearing the Koh-i-Noor diamond.
“…Afrasiab sues for peace, Siavaksh concludes a treaty; but Kai Kaus will not confirm it. That he may not break his word, Siavaksh gives himself up to the Turanians. Afrasiab receives him with honour, and gives him his daughter Feringis to wife. Subsequently he harbours suspicion against him, causes him to be executed, and the son, whom Feringis bears after the execution of her husband, to be brought up among the shepherds without any knowledge of his birth. To this son an abode is then allotted in a remote region of Turan.
“To avenge the execution of Siavaksh[,] Rustem invades Turan. Victorious in the battle[,] he causes Surkha, the son of Afrasiab, whom he captures in the battle, to be put to death in the same way as Siavaksh, pursues Afrasiab to the extreme border of his kingdom, and does not return till the whole of Turan has been laid waste: the booty is immense….” (“The History of Antiquity, Vol. 5“ (of 6), p. 254; Max Duncker (1881) translated by Evelyn Abbott, via Gutenberg.org) [emphasis mine]
Recapping: Afrasiab makes a point of honoring this conquered enemy and giving one of his daughters as a wife — that’s a whole mess of topics I’ll ignore today.
But then Afrasiab has his conquered enemy and son-in-law killed, and kidnaps his grandson, arranging for the child to be raised as a shepherd in some forsaken armpit of his territory.
Small wonder that someone raised an army, killed Afrasiab’s son, and hunted down the filicidal king. The story’s complicated; involving a cave, a lake, and some sort of hermit. But finally Afrasiab’s head got detached,3 and the Koh-i-noor fell into the mists of time.
Emperors, Sultans, Shahs: and the Koh-i-Noor Gets Its Name
Nadir Shah on the Peacock Throne. The Koh-i-Noor diamond was one of the throne’s decorations.
Fast-forward four and a half millennia.
Ẓahīr-ud-Dīn Muhammad Bābur — I’m going to call him Babur — wrote about a diamond he’d acquired.
Seems that Sultan Al-ed-Din Khalji of Delhi had held a diamond that’d come from southern India.
The chronology I found was muddled, but I gather that a Prince Vikramaditya — I’m guessing that’s Hemu Vikramaditya, don’t bother trying to remember these names — the point is that Vikramaditya sent this oversized diamond to the fort of Agra for safekeeping.
Then, when Babur’s forces rolled over that part of India, he presumably acquired the diamond, along with anything else worth hauling away. Babur’s son, Humayun, lost the whole empire, got it back, and died after falling down stairs with an armful of books.
Humayun’s son Akbar inherited the empire, and presumably the diamond. Then he died of a horrible disease. Up to this point, the diamond’s been called the Babur Diamond.
A little over a century of politics later, Nader Shah said “koh-i-noor!” when he saw it, along with the rest of his loot. He’d conquered Muhammad Shah, the 13th Mughal emperor.
That’s how the Koh-i-noor got its name: it means “mountain of light” in Persian.
Anyway, Nader Shah got sick, which apparently made him cranky. At any rate, after someone tried killing him, he decided that his son must have been to blame. So he told someone to take out his son’s eyes. Then he started killing nobles who’d been witnesses.
That, and possibly a habit he developed of making little towers of his victims’ skulls, wasn’t good for morale. Some of his staff decided that they’d get him before he got them. Which they did, removing his head for good measure.4
The Body Count Grows
Next stop for the Koh-i-Noor was Ahmad Shah Durrani, grandson of Nader Shah and founder of the Durrani Empire. He inherited the gem, got sick, then an ulcer on his nose spread into his brain, and he died.
One of Ahmad Shah Durrani’s grandsons, Shah Shujah Durrani, wore the Koh-i-Noor on a bracelet. He allied himself with the United Kingdom, was promptly overthrown, and took himself and the diamond to Lahore.
Ranjit Singh was running Lahore and setting up the Sikh Empire when Ahmend Shah Durrani asked for shelter. He let Shah Shujah Durrani stay, but took the Koh-i-Noor.
Then Ranjit Singh got sick, had a stroke, and died. Just before he died, he said that his jewels, the Koh-i-Noor included, should go to the Jagannath Temple. Probably. There was a difference of opinion, and the treasurer ended up keeping the Koh-i-Noor in the vaults.
The next Sikh emperor was dethroned by his prime minister, who took the Koh-i-Noor. The prime minister kept it until he figured it’d make a nice present for the then-current emperor.
Then someone killed that emperor. When the bodies stopped falling, a five-year-old was emperor: and the youngster had the Koh-i-Noor attached to his arm.
The East India Company — that’s yet another topic — conquered the Sikh Empire in 1858. They specifically demanded that the Koh-i-Noor come to England.
The ship carrying the Koh-i-Noor did make it to England, but it was an eventful trip. A cholera outbreak on board resulted in Mauritanians wanting the ship gone. Or sunk.
But cholera didn’t kill the crew, and a 12-day gale didn’t sink the ship: which arrived in England on June 29, 1850.
East India Company’s deputy chairman formally presented Queen Victoria with the Koh-i-noor on July 3. 1850.
The Koh-i-Noor has been property of the current British monarch ever since.5
In the Shadow of the Koh-i-Noor
In 1854, the 4th and 13th Light Dragoons, 17th Lancers, with the 8th and 11th Hussars, committed mass suicide in what we call the Charge of the Light Brigade.
They weren’t entirely successful, but despite testimony from survivors, we’re still not sure what went so horribly wrong.
The Panic of 1879 began years of sub-par economic conditions. It was particularly bad in the United Kingdom.
A serial killer terrorized London in 1888.
Queen Victoria was ill in 1900, and died in January 0f 1901.6
Spinning all those items from England’s history as a slow-acting curse of the Koh-i-Noor could be done, and maybe has. I won’t, although I will indulge in a little speculation about messy deaths associated with the Koh-i-Noor.
Owning the Koh-i-Noor does correlate with violent and/or unpleasant death. But a fair fraction of all old-school rulers experienced violent and/or unpleasant deaths.
There are reasons so many of them were paranoid. People they knew really were trying to kill them. And occasionally did.
“…More Things in Heaven and Earth….”
Vincent Price as Frederick Loren, in “House on Haunted Hill. (1959)
Hamlet: “…There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy….” (“The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” , Act I, Scene IV, lines 185–186; William Shakespeare (ca. 1599-1601) via The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, MIT)
This is where I had planned on discussing folklore, tales of cursed gems, and how such things connect with history. That’s not going to happen. Not this week.
Between insomnia; an unexpected and very pleasant visit with our second daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter; and difficulty I had in finding useful material — I’m settling for a few excerpts and a short ramble.
Superstition, Seances, and “Supernatural”
I’m a Catholic, and take my faith seriously. So I accept that there’s more to reality than the branch of philosophy we call “science”.
On the other hand, being superstitious is not an option.
Then there’s stuff like divination and seances: which are also not reasonable options. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2006)
Which reminds me of the Endor incident. Saul really should have known better. (1 Samuel 28 18:7–25)
Now, a couple definitions:
“Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.“ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2111) [emphasis mine]
“SUPERNATURAL: surpassing the power of created beings; a result of God’s gracious initiative. Our vocation to eternal life is supernatural. (1998, cf. 1722)”
“SUPERSTITION: the attribution of a kind of magical power to certain practices or objects, like charms or omens. Reliance on such power, rather than on trust in God, constitutes an offense against the honor due to God alone, as required by the first commandment. (2110)” (Catechism, Glossary)
Getting back to the Koh-i-Noor and jinxed gems: I don’t think owning that particular diamond comes with a curse.
The way they lived, and human nature being what it is — we’re not basically bad, but we’re all dealing with consequences a really bad decision, and that’s yet again another topic — it’s a wonder more of the VIPs who owned the Koh-i-Noor didn’t get themselves killed.
Finally, being a Catholic in a society where the ‘spirituality’ settings are a mix of Calvinist and secularist, with a little carnival fortune-teller thrown in: it’s not always easy. Particularly when I try explaining how I see folklore and being “spiritual”:
3 “Very deep is the well of the past…” (“Joseph and His Brothers“, Prologue; Thomas Mann (1933-1943) translated by H. T. Lowe-Porter); a few details, including some that didn’t get into this week’s post:
Wikipedia
Afrasiab (mythical king and hero of Turan, main antagonist of the Persian epic Shahnameh; “Afrasiab” is my language’s version of a Persian name)
Afrasiyab (Samarkand) (ancient site well east of the Caspian Sea, occupied ca. 500 B.C.-1220 A.D.)
Humayun (AKA Nasir al-Din Muhammad, son of Babur, emperor of the Mughal Empire, reigned 1530-1540)
Indian Rebellion of 1857 (AKA Sepoy Mutiny, the Indian Mutiny, the Great Rebellion, the Revolt of 1857, the Indian Insurrection, the First War of Independence)
Koh-i-Noor (Persian name of a diamond, also spelled Koh-e-Noor, Kohinoor, Koh-i-Nur in my language)
Muhammad Shah (thirteenth Mughal emperor, reigned 1719-1748)
Nader Shah (AKA Nadir Shah, founder of the Afsharid dynasty of Iran and one of the country’s most powerful rulers; reigned 1736-1747)
Peacock Throne (the imperial throne of Hindustan, there’s two of them: one taken as a war trophy by Nader Shah, the next disappeared in the Indian Rebellion of 1857)
Something new each Saturday.
Life, the universe and my circumstances permitting. I'm focusing on 'family stories' at the moment. ("A Change of Pace: Family Stories" (11/23/2024))
I was born in 1951. I'm a husband, father and grandfather. One of the kids graduated from college in December, 2008, and is helping her husband run businesses and raise my granddaughter; another is a cartoonist and artist; #3 daughter is a writer; my son is developing a digital game with #3 and #1 daughters. I'm also a writer and artist.
I live in Minnesota, in America's Central Time Zone. This blog is on UTC/Greenwich time.
Support this Blog:
More Perspectives From the Catholic Laity:
Blog - David Torkington
Spiritual theologian, author and speaker, specializing in prayer, Christian spirituality and mystical theology [the kind that makes sense-BHG]
About a century back, someone named Max Valier had a good idea.
![From Illustrated London News: 'The Koh-i-Noor on display at the Great Exhibition prior to its re-installation'. (May 31, 1851) via 'Henry Cole and the Koh-i-Noor Diamond', Nicholas Smith, V and A Archive (August 22, 2017) ©[!] Victoria and Albert Museum, London](https://i0.wp.com/brendans-island.com/blogsource/20240813ff/20240902-Diamond-in-cage_b4a8d2213067ced893954d8ac7c35a27-e1701777741513-610x455-658.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
