National Weather Service map, Monday afternoon. (September 30, 2024)
I’ll be talking about something else this week, but I’ve noticed that the stalking specter of climate change has shifted from California to the east coast.
Meanwhile, here in central Minnesota, we’re under a Red Flag Warning. In other words, conditions are right for wildfires to get out of hand. If we let them.
Since we’re both encouraged to not set our homes ablaze, and allowed to take common-sense precautions, wildfires in these parts seldom if ever make national news. I suspect that Minnesota’s status as a non-coastal state is a factor, too.
There’s a Freeze Warning in effect, by the way, for western North Dakota — over on the other side of the Red Flag Warning area.
I haven’t noticed an expert analysis of this week’s situation, explaining how Minnesota is dry and windy: and therefore climate change is dooming us all.
Again, I suspect it’s because Minnesota isn’t all that important — or maybe it’s because experts read somewhere that the Upper Midwest goes through this every year.
We call it autumn.
Don’t get me wrong.
I think Earth’s climate has been, is now, and will continue to be, changing. I think taking that into account when deciding on whether or not to build high rises on sand bars, or subdivisions in canyons, is prudent.
I also think studying how we’re affecting those changes makes sense.
But I would be far less uncomfortable, discussing such things, if my betters would turn the hysteria down a bit in their pronouncements of perilous portents.
František Kupka’s Neanderthal, in the Illustrated London News. (February 27, 1909)
A long time ago, some folks were — apparently — living happily in the Rhône River Valley.
Whether or not they were happy there, we’ve found evidence that they stayed near what we call the Grotte Mandrin for 50,000 years. And that they somehow managed to keep newcomers from disturbing their solitude: and isolation.
Idyllic as that may seem, keeping themselves free from what my culture called miscegenation may explain why Neanderthals aren’t part of today’s world. Not as identifiable individuals, at any rate.
“In 2015, archaeologists discovered the remains of a Neanderthal in a cave in southern France. They nicknamed him ‘Thorin’ after a dwarf character from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit.
“For the last nine years, researchers have been painstakingly excavating Thorin’s teeth and bones at the site, called Grotte Mandrin. Now, a new analysis of Thorin’s ancient DNA suggests he belonged to a previously unknown lineage of Neanderthals that was isolated for 50,000 years, despite the fact that other members of their species were close by….”
These days, everybody looks a bit like me: more-or-less pointy chin; around 171 centimeters or 159 centimeters tall for men or women, respectively. That’s five foot seven or three inches.
We’re very aware of individual and regional differences, but I figure that’s because we’re very social creatures: which makes being able to tell who’s who very important.
We didn’t know about, or remember, the folks we call Neanderthals until the mid-1800s. That’s when two researchers studied and described parts of a skull, legs, arms, and torso of someone who’d died about 40,000 years back.
The bones had been in a cave that’s not there any more. They showed up during quarrying operations in the Neandertal Valley, east of Dusseldorf.
These weren’t the first Neanderthal remains found, but they were the first that were studied by folks who realized what — who — they were looking at.1
Recognizing the Homo Neanderthalensis Type Specimen: Eventually
The quarry’s owners figured the bones were from a cave bear, but the researchers saw that they were human.
Or, rather, human — but different.
The top of this individual’s skull strongly suggested that the missing face wasn’t nearly as delicate as the current model’s.
Good news, the bones and papers describing what we now call Neanderthal 1 didn’t get lost.
Not-so-good news, biological sciences in Germany were mostly filtered through the ideals of Rudolf Virchow, a very smart chap who recognized evolution as a threat to his political preferences.
He had a point. One of the basic ideas of evolution is that an organism’s ancestors affect how the organism looks and lives.
Since Virchow thought that a person’s skills should matter more than the person’s ancestors, he stuck the ‘elitism’ label on evolution. He was also a socialist, didn’t believe in germ theory, was a staunch anti-Darwinist, and I’m not going to try discussing 19th century politics this week.
I don’t know why Virchow turned the Neanderthal bones over to an anatomist and eye specialist who apparently was also:
“…a resolute supporter of the Christian belief of creation in its traditionalist form….” (“Lag Eden im Neandertal? Auf der Suche nach dem frühen Menschen” / “Was Eden in the Neandertal? In search of early humans”, Martin Kuckenberg (1997) via Wikipedia)
I didn’t find much about August Franz Josef Karl Mayer, the “resolute supporter”, and didn’t spend all that much time looking.
The first two researchers who looked at Neanderthal 1’s remains decided that he had been like us, but different, was solidly built, and had lived a very long time ago.
That wasn’t what Virchow and Mayer wanted to be true. So for a long time, Neanderthal 1 was — according to smart people — a Russian Cossack. A Cossack, poor fellow, who had suffered from rickets before dying in the Neandertal Valley.
In fairness, other smart people who looked at Neanderthal 1 weren’t dedicated to making evidence fit their preferences.2
The Vanished Neanderthals: Still an Enigma
Aerial view of Mandrin Cave, Grotte Mandrin, in the Rhône River Valley; and its location in southern France.
Now let’s look — briefly — at what these researchers said about the Neanderthal they nicknamed “Thorin”.
“Long genetic and social isolation in Neanderthals before their extinction” Ludovic Slimak, Tharsika Vimala, Andaine Seguin-Orlando, Laure Metz, Clément Zanolli, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Marine Frouin, Lee J. Arnold, Martina Demuro, Thibaut Devièse, Daniel Comeskey, Michael Buckley, Hubert Camus, Xavier Muth, Jason E. Lewis, Hervé Bocherens, Pascale Yvorra, Christophe Tenailleau, Benjamin Duployer, Hélène Coqueugniot, Olivier Dutour, Thomas Higham, Martin Sikora; Cell Genomics (September 11, 2024)
“Summary “Neanderthal genomes have been recovered from sites across Eurasia, painting an increasingly complex picture of their populations’ structure that mostly indicates that late European Neanderthals belonged to a single metapopulation with no significant evidence of population structure. … These dentognathic fossils, including a rare example of distomolars, are associated with a rich archeological record of Neanderthal final technological traditions in this region ∼50-42 thousand years ago. Thorin’s genome reveals a relatively early divergence of ∼105 ka with other late Neanderthals. Thorin belonged to a population with a small group size that showed no genetic introgression with other known late European Neanderthals, revealing some 50 ka of genetic isolation of his lineage despite them living in neighboring regions. These results have important implications for resolving competing hypotheses about causes of the disappearance of the Neanderthals.…” (emphasis mine)
Something I liked in summary was their using “disappearance” instead of “extinction” to describe the Neanderthals’ current status.
It’s a real puzzle, since Neanderthals had endured for something like 400,000 years, living in Europe and as far east as the Altai Mountains. Then, about 40,000 years ago, they went off the radar.
Make that almost off the radar. Folks whose recentish ancestors weren’t living in Sub-Saharan Africa have between 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in their gene pool.
Odds are that, since my (recent) ancestral homelands are scattered across northwestern Europe, around 4% of my DNA is good old Neanderthal coding. Probably.
I’ve had my DNA tested, but that analysis focused on solving an issue for another family member: not satisfying my genealogical curiosity.
Folks who look a bit like me, early/anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens, or just plain “humans”, showed up some 300,000 years ago.
We’re still unsure about exactly when we left Africa. But it’s a near-certainty that we lost little or no time before spreading out.
Rubbing elbows with Neanderthals and other folks who’d left humanity’s homeland earlier helps explain how we’re preserving their genes.3
But it doesn’t explain why the Neanderthals stopped being part of the mix. Or how Thorin’s people ended up with none of our DNA.
Living Happily in the Middle Rhône River Valley
Scientist working near the Mandrin Cave’s entrance. (Ludovic Slimak, via AP, used w/o permission)
Ludovic Slimak and the other scientists haven’t, I think, given us the final word on what happened to the Neanderthals. But I think they’ve uncovered an important clue.
Neanderthals, at least those living near the Mandrin Cave in the middle Rhône River Valley, may have felt that their home was the best place anyone could imagine.
They may have been right. But that, and having the happy valley to themselves, may also help explain why Neanderthals aren’t part of today’s ethic mix.
That Smithsonian Magazine article summarized what this month’s “Neanderthal” study said about Thorin and his community:
“…To learn more about Thorin, scientists used a fragment of a root from one of his fossilized molars. This sample allowed them to generate a whole-genome sequence, which revealed evidence of recent inbreeding.…”
“…Thorin belonged to a small group of Neanderthals who lived between 42,000 and 50,000 years ago. He seems to have lived at the more recent end of that window, but his DNA is similar to a much older group that diverged from the main Neanderthal population around 105,000 years ago. After separating from other Neanderthals, the evidence suggests that group remained isolated for the next 50,000 years.
“This discovery raises new questions. Why was this group cut off from other Neanderthals? And did their separation ultimately contribute to the species’ extinction some 40,000 years ago?…” “Ancient DNA Reveals Neanderthal Group Was Isolated for 50,000 Years“ Sarah Kuta, Smithsonian Magazine (September 12, 2024) (emphasis mine)
Many Questions, Still Finding Answers
Scientists at the entrance of the Mandrin cave.
Mandrin Cave, Grotte Mandrin, is named after Louis Mandrin, by the way: a French Robin Hood analog.
The cave is at a strategic spot, and has a beautiful view. It was used by alternating sets of Neanderthals and folks who look like us long before French tax collectors got rich by adding personal fees to the official taxes-due figures. And that’s yet again another topic.
“…The isolated Neanderthals were apparently content to stay in one place. Homo sapiens, meanwhile, were interacting and sharing knowledge.
“‘They were happy in their valley and did not need to move, while Homo sapiens all the time they want to explore, to see what is there after this river, after this mountain,’ [Ludovic] Slimak tells CNN’s Katie Hunt. ‘[We have] this need, this need to move, and this need to build a social network.’” “Ancient DNA Reveals Neanderthal Group Was Isolated for 50,000 Years“ Sarah Kuta, Smithsonian Magazine (September 12, 2024) (emphasis mine)
We’ve been studying molecular biology and tracking DNA codes for less than a century. Applying that knowledge to studies of evolution didn’t take off until the last few decades.
We have, however, been keeping track of genetically isolated groups for quite some time: like the Spanish Habsburgs.
That family’s habit of marrying close relatives kept their wealth intact, but it also ensured that whatever genetic problems they had also stayed in the family.
There have been lively debates over just how the shrinking Spanish Habsburg gene pool correlates with their heritage of epilepsy, insanity, and early death. The last of them, Charlies II of Spain, somehow managed to not die for 38 years. And that’s yet another topic.
Getting back to the Mandrin Cave Neanderthals, they’re just one community. We don’t know whether their habit of keeping to themselves was typical Neanderthal behavior, or if we’re looking at a prehistoric Hapsburg scenario.
This recent research does, however, suggest that at least some Neanderthal communities were careful about letting outsiders move in.
On the other hand, we know that Neanderthal DNA is in today’s gene pool. So even if most Neanderthals were “happy in their valley”, and kept newcomers out, a few twitchy individuals kept heading for the horizon, becoming some of our long-forgotten ancestors.4
Point, Counterpoint, Neanderthals, the Campbells, and Me
Modern human (left) and Neanderthal (right) skulls, from the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.
Neanderthals would have a time blending into a crowd today.
And so would I, if I tried mingling with locals in, say, Kyoto.
Neanderthals weren’t all that tall, about 165 centimeters or 153 centimeters for men or women, respectively: five foot five inches or five foot even.
But they weren’t nearly as delicate-featured and spindly as we are.
Muscle attachment points on their bones, and genetic analysis, tell us that your average Neanderthal was almost ridiculously strong. By our standards.
But don’t let that, and their heavy features, fool you.
They had big brains. Bigger than ours.
We’d know a lot more about Neanderthal brains — and behavior — if they were part of today’s population.
As it is, we’re limited to informed speculation, taking our knowledge of the current model’s brain architecture as a starting point.
The last I checked, researchers were still considering the Neanderthals’ different head shape; and speculating about how good they were at being social, tech-savvy and artistic.5
Confirming or refuting those speculations will be tricky. At least until we develop new analytic tools. And finally get over the notion that looking English, German, French, or whatever, correlates positively with being smart.
Maybe Neanderthals really weren’t all that bright, and didn’t have a refined sense of touch; but were really good at seeing and smelling.
Or maybe Neanderthals didn’t perceive the world quite the way most of us do: and were at least as smart. Smart in different ways, maybe, but smart.
Smarter? Could be. I’m willing to consider the idea: since no matter how strong and smart folks are, if they don’t keep having kids who grow up and have more kids — it won’t be long before they’re gone.
European, Yes; Biased, Yes; “Anglo-Teutonic”, No
“Low types”, left and right; a person of the “superior races”, center. (1899)
I’ll admit to having a bias.
My recent ancestors include those ‘other’ Norwegians: the short, black-haired ones. Like the Sámi peoples, except that we didn’t get listed. Or maybe we did, under “folklore”.
Then there’s the other side of the family. Not all that long ago, an Irishman came sniffing around the daughter of a decent American family. Asked about the suitor’s lineage, one of my ancestors replied, “he doesn’t have family. He’s Irish.” The kids got married anyway, and a couple generations later I came along.
I’m also descended from the clan Campbell. My father showed me a group photo from a few generations back — and sure enough, they all had the clan’s cam beul: a “crooked” or “wry” mouth.6
I don’t have a cam beul, and neither did my father; possibly thanks to that Irishman’s genetic influence. But I don’t see myself as more ‘human’, or less, because I don’t look like part of the clan.
With my family background, it’s a small wonder I’ve got biases, of a sort, against seeing folks who are clearly not from the ‘proper’ families as not — proper. Or maybe not even quite really ‘people’. Not like the proper people are.
Turning that around, I don’t immediately assume that someone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower are automatically jerks. No great virtue: the assumption just doesn’t make sense to me.
Familiarity, Forensic Reconstructions, and Another Piece of the Puzzle
Another point, admittedly an unscientific one, is that recent reconstructions of Neanderthal features — using forensic reconstruction techniques — have a familiar look to them.
I’ve never seen anyone who looks quite like that reconstruction (right) of an old Neanderthal man.
But I have known old-timers, first-generation immigrants from northern Europe, who looked a little like him. It’s mostly the nose.
But again: that’s unscientific, and I won’t insist on it.
I’ve run across criticism of recent Neanderthal reconstructions, pointing out that they involve (some) guesswork and artistic license.7
Fair enough. I think recognizing differences between evidence and analysis is a good idea. But I think that accepting evidence, even if it doesn’t fit what the textbooks of my youth said: is also a good idea.
As for the latest study of “Thorin’s” DNA, and the implications it has for our understanding of his community?
I think we’ve found one small piece of a very large puzzle.
It may be an important piece. But we have a great deal more to learn, before we understand that part of humanity’s long story.
Muscles, Mammals, and Much More Left to Learn
Finally, it’s starting to look like Neanderthals may be the ‘normal’ ones: at least in terms of strength.
“…we looked at genetic variants previous studies had shown to be associated with elite power or sprint athletes. We found that the majority of these power-associated genetic variants were in fact much more common in Neanderthals than in humans today. So it does seem that our theory derived from the study of Neanderthal ecology stands up to provisional genetic scrutiny. “It is important to note that these results are based on a relatively small number of Neanderthals whose DNA has been read.…” (“Neanderthals were sprinters rather than distance runners, study surprisingly suggests” (John Stewart, The Conversation, via Phys.org (January 31, 2019)) (emphasis mine)
The current human ratio of slow-and fast-twitch muscles isn’t unique. There’s at least one other mammal that’s like us in that respect: the slow loris.
“…characterization of fiber-type distributions in the muscles of lemurs, galagos, and macaques suggests that a predominance of MHC II (IIa + IId) isoforms (i.e., fast fibers) is common among primates, as well as other terrestrial mammals (SI Appendix, SI Methods and Table S5). Indeed, the slow loris (Nycticebus coucang) is the only other mammal measured to date with a predominance of slow fibers across its skeletal muscles. Thus, we suggest that the high percentage of MHC I fibers in human skeletal muscle is a derived trait within the hominin lineage, rather than a characteristic of African apes or other nonhuman primates in general….” (“Chimpanzee super strength and human skeletal muscle evolution” ; Matthew C. O’Neill, Brian R. Umberger, Nicholas B. Holowka, Peter J. Reiser; PNAS (June 26, 2017)) (emphasis mine)
That doesn’t mean that we’re slow lorises, or that slow lorises are people.
And, since there is very likely more than genetics involved in how many of which fibers are in our muscles8 — as I keep saying, we have a great deal left to learn.
Which is exciting, considering how much we’ve already discovered:
“Long genetic and social isolation in Neanderthals before their extinction” Ludovic Slimak, Tharsika Vimala, Andaine Seguin-Orlando, Laure Metz, Clément Zanolli, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Marine Frouin, Lee J. Arnold, Martina Demuro, Thibaut Devièse, Daniel Comeskey, Michael Buckley, Hubert Camus, Xavier Muth, Jason E. Lewis, Hervé Bocherens, Pascale Yvorra, Christophe Tenailleau, Benjamin Duployer, Hélène Coqueugniot, Olivier Dutour, Thomas Higham, Martin Sikora; Cell Genomics (September 11, 2024)
2 (Finally) recognizing Neanderthals:
Wikipedia
Aryan race (A particular set of folks living in northern Europe who were better than everyone else: according to some of those folks. Pseudoscience, but still appeals to some audiences.)
August Franz Josef Karl Mayer (Researcher who studied the Neanderthal 1 remains, after Fuhlrott and Schaaffhausen did their research.)
Germ theory of disease (The idea that microorganisms can cause disease. A ‘down’ side is that it encourages washing one’s hands.)
Hermann Schaaffhausen (“This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations….”) (One of two researchers who first studied the Neanderthal 1 remains.)
Johann Carl Fuhlrott (One of two researchers who first studied the Neanderthal 1 remains.)
Junk science (Fraudulent research: something the other side in a political screaming contest does.)
Neanderthal 1 (First Neanderthal specimen identified as being one of a distinct species.)
Pseudoscience (Sounds scientific, but isn’t: phrenology, determining someone’s character by measuring the bumps on the subject’s head, is a good — or bad — example.)
Rickets (An unpleasant medical condition resulting in weak or soft bones, pain, and trouble sleeping.)
Rudolf Virchow (Scientist, prehistorian, writer, editor, resolutely anti-Catholic; apparently believed in the importance of maintaining political purity when doing science.)
Charles II of Spain (“El Hechizado” / “the Bewitched”, last of the Spanish Habsburgs: and an example of why inbreeding is a bad idea.)
DNA (We’ve learned a lot over the last several decades.)
Early expansions of hominins out of Africa (“This article is about spreading theory of early humans before about 200,000 years ago. For migrations of anatomically modern humans, see Recent African origin of modern humans….”
Early human migrations (“…They are believed to have begun approximately 2 million years ago with the early expansions out of Africa by Homo erectus….”) (We’ve been on the move for a long time.)
Neanderthal behavior (“The details about Neanderthal behaviour remain highly controversial….” That’s putting it mildly.)
Neanderthal genetics (“This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards….”) (Basically, we’ve been learning a LOT about Neanderthal genetics since 2010.)
“Modern human incursion into Neanderthal territories 54,000 years ago at Mandrin, France” Ludovic Slimak, Clément Zanolli, Tom Higham , Marine Frouin, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Lee J Arnold, Martina Demuro, Katerina Douka, Norbert Mercier, Gilles Guérin, Hélène Valladas, Pascale Yvorra, Yves Giraud, Andaine Seguin-Orlando, Ludovic Orlando, Jason E Lewis, Xavier Muth, Hubert Camus, Ségolène Vandevelde, Mike Buckley, Carolina Mallol, Chris Stringer, Laure Metz; Science Acvances (February 9, 2022)
“A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome” Richard E. Green, Johannes Krause, Adrian W. Briggs, Tomislav Maricic, Udo Stenzel, Martin Kircher, Nick Patterson, Heng Li, Weiwei Zhai, Markus Hsi-Yang Fritz, Nancy F. Hansen, Eric Y. Durand, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, Jeffrey D. Jensen, Tomas Marques-Bonet, Can Alkan, Kay Prüfer, Matthias Meyer, Hernán A. Burbano, Jeffrey M. Good, Rigo Schultz, Ayinuer Aximu-Petri, Anne Butthof, Barbara Höber, Barbara Höffner, Madlen Siegemund, Antje Weihmann, Chad Nusbaum, Eric S. Lander, Carsten Russ, Nathaniel Novod, Jason Affourtit, Michael Egholm, Christine Verna, Pavao Rudan, Dejana Brajkovic, Željko Kucan, Ivan Gušic, Vladimir B. Doronichev, Liubov V. Golovanova, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Marco de la Rasilla, Javier Fortea, Antonio Rosas, Ralf W. Schmitz, Philip L. F. Johnson, Evan E. Eichler, Daniel Falush, Ewan Birney, James C. Mullikin, Montgomery Slatkin, Rasmus Nielsen, Janet Kelso, Michael Lachmann, David Reich, Svante Pääbo; Science (May 7, 2010) via PMC PubMed Central
“Mandrin Cave Pushes Earliest Date For Homo sapiens in France to 57,000 Years Ago” Ludovic Slimak, Clément Zanolli, Tom Higham, Marine Frouin, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Lee J. Arnold, Martina Demuro, Katerina Douka, Norbert Mercier, Gilles Guérin, Hélène Valladas, Pascale Yvorra, Yves Giraud, Andaine Seguin-Orlando, Ludovic Orlando, Jason E. Lewis, Xavier Muth, Hubert Camus, Ségolène Vandevelde, Mike Buckley, Carolina Mallol, Chris Stringer, Laure Metz; Human Evolution @ UCL (University College London) (February 10, 2022)
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)
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))
Blog - David Torkington
Spiritual theologian, author and speaker, specializing in prayer, Christian spirituality and mystical theology [the kind that makes sense-BHG]
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’ve talked about this before:
