This year, I’m glad that I lack a deep emotional connection to what’s happening in Paris. Mainly because of the remarkable “Festivité” show.
I don’t think this year’s performance art at Paris 2024’s opening ceremony will affect its popularity. Too many folks get too excited about other folks showing what they can do for that.
And a drag show — that we’re told was not made to look like Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper” — apparently doesn’t clash with the Olympic Charter’s high ideals.1
Even so, I think this communiqué/bulletin from the Vatican makes sense.
“The Holy See was saddened by certain scenes during the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympic Games and can only join the voices that have been raised in recent days to deplore the offence caused to many Christians and believers of other religions.
“At a prestigious event where the whole world comes together to share common values, there should be no allusions ridiculing the religious convictions of many people. The freedom of expression, which is clearly not called into question here, is limited by respect for others.”
I might have added “disgusted” to “saddened”. But I’m a very emotional man, and not directly involved with international diplomacy. For which we should all be thankful, and that’s another topic.
Catholic bishops in France seem to have had mixed feelings about this year’s Summer Olympics opening ceremony.
“‘The opening ceremony,’ the French Bishops’ Conference acknowledged, ‘offered the world last wonderful moments of beauty, joy, rich emotions, and universal acclaim,’ but ‘included scenes of derision and mockery of Christianity, which we deeply deplore.’
“At the forefront of the criticism across was a reenactment of Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ by ten men in drag….
“…In response to requests for explanations, Michaël Aloïsio, spokesperson for the Paris 2024 Olympic Organizing Committee, responded on Saturday, July 27, on Franceinfo: ‘We stand by our decision to push boundaries.’…
“…The opening ceremony ended on a hopeful note, unanimously appreciated by spectators, with one of the evening’s highlights: Céline Dion concluding Edith Piaf’s ‘Hymn to Love’ from the first floor of the Eiffel Tower, letting the last words of the song resonate in the Parisian night: ‘God reunites those who love each other.'”
It’s Okay, Everybody’s Doing It?
Differences of opinion regarding artistic interpretations of the Last Supper happen.
Salvador Dali’s “The Sacrament of the Last Supper”, for example, is “junk” and a “misunderstood masterpiece”: depending on who’s talking.2
I like it. But then, I don’t mind paintings that don’t look like they were done by some Renaissance artist. I’m drifting off-topic again.
Getting back to the Summer Olympics’ starting show.
I gather that it represented “a pagan feast linked to the gods of Olympus”, was inspired by Leonardo da Vinci’s famous “Last Supper”, and was not inspired by da Vinci’s mural.3
“…The ‘Festivité’ segment contained a scene of drag queens and other artists arranged in a row along a catwalk. A statement from Paris 2024 said that it was inspired by Leonardo da Vinci’s fresco The Last Supper, which depicts Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, while Thomas Jolly and the Olympic Games’ X account stated that this represented ‘a pagan feast linked to the gods of Olympus’ and an ‘interpretation of the Greek god Dionysus [that] makes us aware of the absurdity of violence between human beings’….
“…In response to the criticism, the Paris 2024 producers stated that ‘Thomas Jolly took inspiration from Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting to create the setting’, and cited that the painting had already been frequently parodied in popular culture. However, the next day Jolly denied having been inspired by The Last Supper on BFM TV. On 28 July, organisers issued an apology for the performance, stating that ‘there was never an intention to show disrespect to any religious group’.…” [emphasis mine]
I’m impressed that event organizers issued an apology for the whatever-it-was.
Particularly since, as the Wikipedia page puts it, da Vinci’s “Last Supper” has been “frequently parodied in popular culture”.
Justifying behavior by citing ‘everybody’s doing it’ — an “appeal to the people” — sounds cooler in Latin: “argumentum ad populum”. But apparently that argument is still recognized as a fallacy in argumentation theory.4
Maybe ‘democratic principles’ only go so far. And yeah: that’s yet more topics.
Maybe the Paris 2024 producers had no idea that putting on a drag show that looked like da Vinci’s “Last Supper” might bother at least a few French citizens.
Or maybe they didn’t see the “Last Supper” connection until after it was too late to book another act.
Either way, I’ll give them credit for issuing an apology.
Dealing With Reality
I’d prefer living in a world where my betters would realize that a drag version of “The Last Supper” would go over as well as a blackface performance of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, at least in some quarters.
But forcing others to act as if what I hold dear matters — isn’t an option. It’s not even one I’d want.
I’m just glad that Notre-Dame of Paris is getting repaired, and that the French government allows Catholics to worship there. The situation’s complicated, and that’s — yet again more topics.5
The Last Supper: It’s a Big Deal
For Catholics, the Last Supper is more than just a meal.
It’s been some time since I talked about that, partly because explaining Mass and the Eucharist involves discussing ideas that are not part of my native culture.
I’ve been feeling distinctly sub-par, and there’s another topic I’d planned on doing this week. So I’ll say that the Last Supper is when Jesus established the Eucharist, which makes it a very big deal — and leave it at that.
“EUCHARIST: The ritual, sacramental action of thanksgiving to God which constitutes the principal Christian liturgical celebration of and communion in the paschal mystery of Christ. The liturgical action called the Eucharist is also traditionally known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is one of the seven sacraments of the Church; the Holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation (1322 ff.). The Sunday celebration of the Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life (2177). See Mass.”
“MASS: The Eucharist or principal sacramental celebration of the Church, established by Jesus at the Last Supper, in which the mystery of our salvation through participation in the sacrificial death and glorious Resurrection of Christ is renewed and accomplished. The Mass renews the paschal sacrifice of Christ as the sacrifice offered by the Church. It is called ‘Mass’ (from the Latin missa) because of the ‘mission’ or ‘sending’ with which the liturgical celebration concludes (Latin: ‘Ite, Missa est.’) (1332; cf. 1088, 1382, 2192). See Eucharist; Paschal Mystery/Sacrifice.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)
Update (2100 UTC — 4 p.m. here in central Minnesota — August 5, 2024)
“Trust and Mercy” (guest post: Deacon L. N. Kaas) (April 8, 2018)
1 Background and current events:
Wikipedia
2024 Summer Olympics (“This article documents a current sporting event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports, scores, or statistics may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information….”)
Concept art: Max Space inflatable habitat on Lunar surface.
I remember when many folks were getting used to the idea that space travel wasn’t just science fiction. Some apparently still haven’t gotten the memo, but others have been developing new technologies. Like inflatable space stations.
I’ll be talking about that, and how I see getting back on the road to the stars.
Building Better Habitats: Basket-Weave, and Now: Isotensoids?
Max Space people and expandable space habitat prototype at MARS 2024.
Space habitats like Salyut, Almaz, Skylab, and the ISS, aren’t new.
As an idea, inflatable habitats go back at least to 1961. That’s when Goodyear designed and built a prototype concept station. It looked like an inner tube, and was never flown into orbit.
Fast-forward to 2016. The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module was docked to the ISS for a two-year test. It’s still up there, currently being used for storage.
Fast-forward again, and a startup called Max Space has what they think is a better, safer, and less expensive design for inflatable space habitats.
I haven’t found much about Max Space, apart from what’s in a TechCrunch article. No surprises there. Max Space is a very new company, run by folks who have been pretty much off the radar.
I did, however, finally learn what “MARS” in “the prestigious Amazon MARS 2024 event” (probably) stands for: “Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Space”.
I’m not sure why MARS is so low-profile. Maybe it’s the sort of thing only tech nerds find interesting, maybe it’s the Amazon connection.1 I don’t know.
At any rate, that’s what got me started this week. That, and an 18th century mathematician who did some of the science behind airplanes and rocket engines.
“…strong, simple, and safe….”
Sierra Nevada Corporation LIFE inflatable habitat.
Instead of ferreting out background on Max Space and their new habitat tech, I’ll let Aaron Kemmer and Maxim de Jong do the talking.
“…[Maxim de] Jong, through his company Thin Red Line Aerospace, worked successfully with Bigelow Aerospace to develop and launch this basket-weave structure, but he had his doubts from the start about the predictability of so many stitches, overlaps, and interactions. A tiny irregularity could lead to a cascading failure even well below safety thresholds.
“‘I looked at all these straps, and as a field guy I was thinking, this is a cluster. As soon as you’re over or under pressure, you don’t know what percentage of the load is going to be transferred in one direction or another,’ he said. ‘I never found a solution for it.’
“He was quick to add that the people working on basket-weave designs today (primarily at Sierra Nevada and Lockheed Martin) are extremely competent and have clearly advanced the tech far beyond what it was in the early 2000s, when Bigelow’s pioneering expandable habitats were built and launched. (Genesis I and II are still in orbit today after 17 years, and the BEAM habitat has been attached to the ISS since 2016.)
“But mitigation isn’t a solution. Although basket-weave, with its flight heritage and extensive testing, has remained unchallenged as the method of choice for expandables, the presence of a suboptimal design somewhere in the world haunted De Jong, in the way such things always haunt engineers. Surely there was a way to do this that was strong, simple, and safe….”
I’m not convinced that Aaron Kemmer was the best lead narrator for this video. Particularly not in combination with the topic-appropriate background music.
On the other hand, he’s a Max Space founder and someone with expertise in this field. Plus, I was born during the Truman administration, so my idea of ‘best narrative voice’ may be outdated.
Next, the TechCrunch article’s introduction to these two engineering entrepreneurs; then a (very) quick look inflatable habitats in general and the Max Space prototype in particular.
Expandable Habitats and Max Space
Inflated Max Space prototype, outside and inside views.
“…The startup is led by Aaron Kemmer, formerly of Made in Space, and Maxim de Jong, an engineer who has studiously avoided the limelight despite being the co-creator of expandable habitats like the one currently attached to the International Space Station.
“They believe that the breakout moment for this type of in-space structure is due to arrive any year now. By positioning themselves as a successor to — and fundamental improvement on — the decades-old designs being pursued by others, they can capture what may eventually be a multi-billion-dollar market….” “Max Space reinvents expandable habitats with a 17th-century twist, launching in 2026” “Super-strong and ‘stupidly simple'” , Devin Coldewey, TechCrunch (July 27, 2024)
I found a fair number of references to Aaron Kemmer online, but they were mostly podcasts, social media accounts, and the like. Since I’m not sure how to evaluate resources like that, I’m moving on.
New Technology Built on Old Ideas
Deflated 20-cubic-meter habitat makes a two-cubic-meter pancake.
Inflatable habitats look good for orbital, lunar and other uses. That’s because they’ll squeeze into comparatively small packages for launch, and that means less aerodynamic stress on the way up.
One of these days I may talk about how inflatables like now-defunct Bigelow Aerospace’s B330 — I’ve put links in the footnotes — are more than just expensive balloons.
But not today. It’s been one of those weeks, and I’m keeping this (fairly) short.
Basically, if folks are going to live and work in a habitat — inflatable or otherwise — it must keep their air in, radiation out, and give some protection from meteorites and debris.
And that brings me to what Maxim de Jong said about “basket-weave” design for inflatable habitats and transferring load/stress. Which puzzled me.
I’d gathered that an advantage of designs that spread stress along a structure’s surface — predictably or not — was that they spread stress along the surface.
And that an advantage of shapes like geodesic domes is that stress at one point gets shared out to a larger part of the structure fast, lowering the odds that something will break.2
I see how a habitat where stress spreads along one axis is lighter than one with a more complex design. But: well, I’m no engineer.
Maybe stress that doesn’t run along the tension lines doesn’t matter, when we’re looking at stress resulting from differing pressures.
Maxim de Jong got his idea from looking at Mylar ‘get well’ balloons — his son was in the hospital, I don’t know more it than was in that TechCrunch article.
Being an engineer, he saw that all of the stress was along one axis. Then, when he dug into literature on the idea, de Jong found an 18th century mathematician’s research.
Perceived Impossibilities and Being Human
Diagram from “Curvatura Laminae Elasticae”, Daniel Bernoulli. (1694)
The TechCrunch article mentions isotensoids in that diagram’s caption:
I didn’t find Bernoulli’s “Curvatura Laminae Elasticae” online. But I did find his diagram used, as Figure 5 in Raph Levien’s “The elastica: a mathematical history”.3
My quest for a simple explanation for what “isotensoid” means finally led me to this:
“…The isotensoid is a spheroidal shape that carries stress only in one direction under uniform internal pressure….” (“Structural mechanics of lobed inflatable structures” ; Andrew Lennon, Sergio Pellegrino; Proceedings of the European Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Mechanical Testing (2015) via NASA/ADS/Harvard)
Which I could have gotten from the TechCrunch article’s discussion, but I like to verify what I read.
That habit sometimes pays off. Or at least sends me down interesting rabbit holes.
The TechCrunch article said that Bernoulli was a French mathematician, which may be accurate; although I gather that the Bernoulli family started in Belgium, unless they’re part of a Dutch family of Italian ancestry.
Actually, that part of Belgium was part of the Spanish Netherlands, and the family moved to Frankfurt am Main/Frankfurt for their health. I’ve talked about religion-themed propaganda during Europe’s turf wars before.
These Bernoullis ended up in Switzerland and were mainly famous for being math whizzes.
French? Well, they spent a fair amount of time near France, I’d settle for “European”, and that’s another topic or three.
I’d known about Daniel Bernoulli because of Bernoulli’s principle, an idea in fluid dynamics that the faster a fluid flows, the lower its pressure. That’s sort of related to the Venturi effect,4 and the reason many rocket engines look a little like Coke bottles.
New Ideas, Old Reactions
Minnesota in winter: humans ‘can’t live’ here. It’s too cold during winters.
Last year I talked about a very earnest op-ed piece entitled “Human Beings Will Never Permanently Colonize Mars or Even the Moon” , with an equally-earnest subtitle: “Billionaires are destroying Earth for a childish fantasy”.5
I’ll agree that we don’t, right now, have the equivalent of Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station or McMurdo Station on Earth’s moon. But permanent settlements in Antarctica are a recent development.
Until the 19th century, we didn’t have the tech and interests needed to see living and working in Antarctica as a good idea. Folks have been born and have died there since then, but nobody’s been born and died in Antarctica. Yet. I figure it’s just a matter of time before our “bases” become “towns”.6
It wasn’t until the 1960s that we could send people to the Moon at all. And it’s only recently that we’ve made definite plans for going back: setting up a long-term presence this time.
Saying that human beings will “never” live and work on the Moon or Mars sounds like “if God had wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings” — an ‘old saying’ I ran into it quite a bit in my youth.
Back then, it was given as an example of how newfangled ideas upset some folks.
I tried tracking down the ‘God would have given him wings’ saying this week, and learned that it’s been mentioned in news articles off and on, at least recently.
What a Bishop Didn’t Say, and the Wright Brothers’ Mother
The story goes that the Wright brother’s father said “if God had wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings” in a sermon, after reading about Otto Lilienthal’s fatal crash.
It’s a good story, with the drama of a distraught father striving to save his sons from impending doom. And it fits neatly into my culture’s assumptions about Christians, science, and new ideas.
There’s just one problem. There’s apparently no evidence backing it up.
“…Bishop Milton Wright was the first official professor of theology in that church, as well as a missionary to Oregon, a pastor in Indiana and an editor, according to [the Rev. Dr. John H.] Ness [Jr]. He was elected a bishop in 1877 and again in 1885, but led in a split of the church in 1889 and became the first bishop and publishing agent of the United Brethren (Old Constitution). The split was largely over the issue of churchmen as members of secret organizations, which Wright opposed.
“Dr. Ness said he could find no evidence anywhere that Bishop Wright had said, as has often been reported, that ‘if God had wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings.’ Instead, he said, the bishop’s pride in his sons’ accomplishments shows up strongly in his journals. However, he added, Orville and Wilbur apparently got most of their skills and advice from their mother, who knew both how to draw and to use mechanical tools….” (Full text of “North Carolina Christian advocate [serial].” Vol. 114, No. 27 (July 10, 1969) Duke University Library; Greensboro, North Carolina; Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014) [emphasis mine]
What that North Carolina Christian Advocate story said about the Wright brothers’ mother reminded me of this household. My wife’s the one with a degree in computer science, many of the tools our son uses came from her, and that’s yet another topic.
Maybe it was some other bishop who added the “if God had wanted man to fly” saying to our folklore.
Given what I’ve noticed about human nature, I’d be surprised if someone, somewhere, hadn’t said something along the lines of “…would have given him wings”.
Here’s another example of the ‘it is new, therefore it is impossible’ attitude:
“…His Plan Is Not Original
That Professor Goddard, with his ‘chair’ in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react — to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools….” (“A Severe Strain on Credulity”, The New York Times; page 12, column 5 (January 13, 1920) via Wikisource)
I was going somewhere with this. Let me think. Space habitats. New ideas. An 18th century mathematician, the Wright brothers, and Goddard’s rocket experiments. Right.
“Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”
Construction project on the ISS. (December 12, 2006)
I don’t miss the Sixties. For one thing, I sincerely don’t want to be a teenager again: once was quite enough.
But I wouldn’t mind if more of us remembered how folks around the world watched humanity’s “one small step”.
A thousand years from now, I strongly suspect that our first Moon landing will be remembered. Maybe not remembered well: but remembered more than the Dominican Civil War, Congo Crisis, or even the Beatles.
The Space Race was arguably part of the Cold War.7
But I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t the geopolitical ramifications of America’s human spaceflight program that got the attention of so many people.
I think many were getting excited about the Apollo 11 landing because they recognized a unique historical event when they saw it.
I know I was excited.
Partly because I’m an American, and it’s nice when my country’s government gets something right.
But mostly because I realized that before the Eagle landed, nobody from Earth had ever walked on another world. That made the event unique.
A half-century later, I’m glad that humanity has finally gotten around to planning a return to the Moon: and that my country has a significant share in that effort.
What’s Next?
Interstellar mission: illustration by Tom Brosz.
A question that’s implicit in statements like “if God had wanted man to fly” and “Billionaires are destroying Earth for a childish fantasy” is — should we try building airplanes or spaceships?
It’s not a silly question.
From some viewpoints, serious-minded folks should spend their days brooding on the futility of it all and humanity’s utter depravity — while striving to make everyone drop what they’re doing and join in the high-minded misery.
In my youth, I didn’t see the point of a rabidly-religious version of that viewpoint. I’m no great fan of the secular equivalent that’s become fashionable.
There’s a (very) little truth behind the attitude.
Scientific research and how we use technology have ethical angles. We’ve got brains and should think about what we do. Whether we decide to help or harm each other matters. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, , 1723, 1730-1738, 2292-2296, 2493-2499)
Good grief. I talked about this a couple months back:
“…Truth matters, both in science and in faith. (Catechism, 31, 159, and more)
“God is the source of all truth. (Catechism, 2465)
Okay. A few more points, and I’m done for this week.
We’re pretty hot stuff: “little less than a god”, as it says in Psalms. But God is large and in charge; and that’s not going to change, no matter how much we learn, or how far we go.
“Indeed, before you the whole universe is like a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth. “But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook sins for the sake of repentance.” (Wisdom 11:22–23)
“When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place— “What is man that you are mindful of him, and a son of man that you care for him? “Yet you have made him little less than a god, crowned him with glory and honor. “You have given him rule over the works of your hands, put all things at his feet:” (Psalms 8:4–7)
If it was a question of either acting like our neighbors matter, or getting back on the road to the stars,8 I’d say the universe can wait until we solve all of humanity’s problems.
But I think we can both work on humanity’s massive backlog of unresolved issues and start living on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
God’s universe is calling us. If this generation doesn’t answer, another will.
More of my take on life, the universe, and being human:
Politics in the Gilded Age: “A Hard Pull”: Puck’s view of James Blaine. (October 1, 1884)
I could ignore the current presidential fracas: claiming that I’m too ‘spiritual’ for worldly matters, or can’t abide the pervasive political posturing and pandering.
But that’s not an option.
Neither, for me, is getting “political” in the sense of declaring that, if elected, candidate A will doom us all; while candidate B is America’s only hope.
Those attitudes aren’t new, and that’s another topic.1
This week I’ll be talking about why I don’t fit into current political pigeonholes: or, rather, why I fit into several.
I’m a Catholic, so I think that the common good matters.
That involves respect for the human person, the individual; the well-being and development of societies; and at least a measure of security and stability for societies and individuals. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1905-1912)
Also since I’m a Catholic, I can’t sit back and munch popcorn while the usual suspects put on their dog and pony shows.
Since I’m just some guy living in central Minnesota, the weight of the world isn’t on my shoulders. Which is fine by me.
But I am personally responsible for what I can do: taking a part in public life, as far as my circumstances permit. (Catechism, 1913-1917)
So: if I think the common good matters, how come I’m not denouncing someone or something; or declaring that our only hope is someone or something else?
Basically, it’s because I don’t think life is that simple. Not even life’s political side.
Besides, as I said last week, being a Catholic gives me a counter-cultural perspective.2 Which isn’t nearly as scary as it may sound.
Political Pigeonholes and the Big Picture
Years ago now, my father-in-law was asked if he’s conservative — or liberal.
His answer: “I’m Catholic”.
I’d have given the same answer.
Catholic teachings are quite definite, so I could peg them on the American political spectrum — as long as I didn’t look at the big picture.
On the other hand, taking bits and pieces of Catholic beliefs, and the history of Catholics in America, I could claim that the Catholic Church is conservative. Or that it’s liberal.
It’s neither, and that may take explaining.
Sex, Death, and Immigrants
World Youth Day, Rome. (2000)
The Church might look liberal because we’re told that sex is a good thing, social justice is important, and the death penalty is never a good idea.3 (Genesis 1:27, 31; Catechism, 1928-1942, 2267, 2331-2391)
We might look conservative because we’re told that extra- and non-marital sex is a bad idea, private property is a good idea, and both abortion and euthanasia are wrong. (Catechism, 2270-2279, 2348-2356, 2380-2381, 2401-2406)
The Church also says that immigrants are people, with rights and responsibilities. (Catechism, 2241, 2443)
This view of immigrants isn’t new, which doesn’t make it either conservative or liberal. It’s just something that’s made sense for millennia.
“You shall not oppress a resident alien; you well know how it feels to be an alien, since you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9)
“‘When an alien resides with you in your land, do not mistreat such a one. “You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; you shall love the alien as yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt. I, the LORD, am your God.” (Leviticus 19:33–34)
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,” (Matthew 25:35)
Next, let’s see what the Church says about defending lives, including mine.
Hawk? Dove?
I don’t like wars.
They kill people and break things.
Avoiding war is a good idea. But I’d make a terrible pacifist.
That’s because I think protecting folks is a good idea. Even when being polite won’t work.
Defending myself from a lethal attack would be okay; even if my action results in my attacker’s death. But I must use the least possible force. (Catechism, 2263-2267)
That’s because my life is precious. So is my hypothetical attacker’s. My intent should be saving my own life, not killing another person: even if that is the unintended effect of my action. (Catechism, 2263-2269; “Summa Theologica”, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 64, Article 7; Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1270))
The same “legitimate defense” principle applies to decisions national leaders face. That’s why using force isn’t always wrong. (Catechism, 2265-2269, 2307-2317)
I could make my beliefs fit pigeonholes like ‘hawk,’ ‘dove,’ ‘bleeding heart liberal’, or ‘heartless conservative’. All it’d take would be picking the bits of Catholic teaching I like and ignoring the rest. But I won’t. It wouldn’t make sense.
One more thing before wrapping this part up.
Long-Term Goals
I could, but won’t, argue that what the Church says about legitimate defense is inconsistent — since we’re told that killing prisoners is wrong, but that using force to stop an invader can be okay.
I don’t see it as a problem, since I think we’re still working toward Pope St. John Paul II’s “civilization of love”.
“…The answer to the fear which darkens human existence at the end of the twentieth century is the common effort to build the civilization of love, founded on the universal values of peace, solidarity, justice, and liberty….” (“To the United Nations Organization” , Pope St. John Paul II (October 5, 1995))
But we’re not there yet.
Another work-in-progress is developing a “sufficiently powerful authority at the international level”, so that conflicts can be settled peacefully.
“…As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted….” (“Gaudium et Spes” , Pope Bl. Paul VI (December 7, 1965)) [emphasis mine]
We’re not there yet, either. And, as my news feed’s headlines keep reminding me, the danger of war is very real.
Even so, I think working toward an approximation of Tennyson’s “Federation of the World” and Pope St. John Paul II’s “civilization of love” is a good idea.
Along with remembering that turning good ideas into practical realities takes time.
“…For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;… “…Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. “There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe, And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.…” (“Locksley Hall“, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1835)) [emphasis mine]
“…Gone the cry of ‘Forward, Forward,’ lost within a growing gloom; Lost, or only heard in silence from the silence of a tomb. “Half the marvels of my morning, triumphs over time and space, Staled by frequence, shrunk by usage into commonest commonplace! “‘Forward’ rang the voices then, and of the many mine was one. Let us hush this cry of ‘Forward’ till ten thousand years have gone.…” (“Locksley Hall – Sixty Years After“, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1886)) [emphasis mine]
Fear and Politics
I can see why folks who haven’t come to grips with America not being a strictly “Yankee” country might fear Catholics.
Many of us don’t have English ancestors. I don’t think that makes us ‘un-American’, but then — I’m a Catholic. I wouldn’t.
We’ve been part of America since before America was a country.
Catholics lived in the thirteen colonies and other parts of today’s United States long before 1776, but we didn’t start arriving in disturbing numbers until the 19th century.
Catholic immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Italy, and other foreign parts were mostly working-class folks. Not surprisingly, given then-current conditions, most Catholic Americans voted Democrat: 70% overall, 80% for Irish Catholics.
That changed, of course. Children and descendants of the immigrants became white-collar workers, developing voting and other habits that were closer to the American norm.4 Which can be a problem, and that’s yet another topic.
Me? I’m part-Irish. I’ve been blue-collar, white-collar, and unemployed. That’s given me opportunities for appreciating several viewpoints.
I take my faith seriously, which means I try to be a good citizen. That includes voting as if what’s right and wrong matters.
Thinking about issues and candidates, voting for whoever and whatever is best — or likely to do the least damage, in some cases — good grief. It’s pretty much the opposite of easy. Particularly since I can’t kid myself that voting a straight party ticket is a good idea.
That’s all I’ll say for now. Apart from mentioning a few ideas I wouldn’t mind seeing reflected in politics, and the best news humanity’s ever had.
Love, Hope, and Making Sense
Recapping: taking an active part in public life is part of being a Catholic. That starts with my personal responsibilities: in my family, at work, in my community. (Catechism, 1913-1917)
I’m retired now, so I’ve got more time for family and other activities: like researching and writing these posts.
I enjoy learning and sharing what I find, but that’s not why I keep doing this.
Sharing what we’re learning about about God’s universe and humanity’s long story will, I hope, be fun — if nerdy — reading; and also be a case in point, showing that faith and reason, science and religion work together. Or should, and that’s yet again another topic.5
Plus, I’ll occasionally pass along the best news humanity’s ever had.
Over the last two millennia, folks like Saints Augustine of Hippo, Teresa of Ávila, Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine of Siena, and Thérèse of Lisieux,6 have thought about what Jesus said.
It still boils down to love and hope. That works for me. So does remembering that some things matter more than conforming to current conventions:
This isn’t, or isn’t quite, what I’ll be talking about this week. But what strikes me as a probably-pecksniffian — look it up — nasty prank got my attention:
About speculation mentioned in the Reuters summary: there’s no reported evidence, a little before noon here in central Minnesota, pointing at folks pushing any one particular ‘Great Cause’ having set fires and stolen equipment.
The good news is that, so far, nobody seems to have been hurt. Apart from folks in France having their lives disrupted by a major transportation SNAFU.
That’s not always the case, when folks with high ideals and flexible ethics decide that doing something bad for ‘the greater good’ is a just simply spiffing idea:
Marian Garden, Our Lady of Angels, Sauk Centre, Minnesota.
My parish is Our Lady of the Angles in Sauk Centre, Minnesota. It’s part of the Parishes on the Prairie Catholic Community — and that’s a topic for another time.
Aside from routine matters, we’re not exactly at the center of diocesan activity. That’s why I think our priest, Fr. Greg Paffel, getting this year’s diocesan Humanae Vitae Award is a big deal.
I’ll be talking about that, briefly, “Humanae Vitae”, and why I think human life matters.
Billy Sunday, preaching up a storm, as shown in Metropolitan Magazine. (1915)
Each year our diocese gives their Humanae Vitae Award to someone “who has demonstrated courage in promoting Natural Family Planning”, NFP.1
From my viewpoint, NFP involves a married couple being responsible, using scientific knowledge of human biology.
It’s counter-cultural, but my teens and the Sixties overlap, so that doesn’t bother me.
The Sixties is also when a few regrettable ideas got traction.
I think I understand why so many folks defied antiquated rules. Or what they thought were antiquated rules, at any rate.
A half-century later, we’ve still got regrettable ideas in play.
“The True Voice of the Church….”
It’s apparently okay for folks to use a Catholic house of worship as a projector screen for not-exactly-pro-Catholic slogans. Despite a cardinal’s protest.
“Washington Cardinal Wilton Gregory criticized a light show projected onto the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception by Catholics for Choice and other supporters of abortion as thousands of faithful gathered for Mass during the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life, Jan. 20.
Thanks to today’s information tech, any American with a halfway-decent Internet connection has access to what the Church says.
The trick is remembering that a sound bite on the nightly news may not accurately reflect what the Church has been saying.
And that brings me to “Humanae vitae”.
My First Look at Catholic Thought
I wasn’t a Catholic when my wife and I got married; which involved a little paperwork, since marriage is a sacrament.
One of these days I may talk about sacraments and marriage, but not today. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1113ff, 2360-2379, and more)
Anyway, part of the process included giving my word that I’d see to it that our children, if any, would be raised as Catholics.
That’s when the trouble started. I’d given my word, so part of my job was learning what being a Catholic meant: and that got me started reading “Humanae vitae”: “Of Human Life”.
This was before the World Wide Web, so I got a print copy of the English translation: nearly seven thousand words of academese.2
Scholarly language notwithstanding, I’d expected to find logical gaps big enough for semi-trailer traffic.
I didn’t find any. Which was frustrating, since I didn’t like the rules.
But the logic was watertight.
That put me in an awkward position. I could either stop thinking that, for example, reality is real and actions have consequences; or accept that the Church was right about artificial contraception.
On a related note, my father-in-law warned me that if I kept learning about the Church, eventually I’d know too much. He was right. After a while, I realized that the authority our Lord gave Peter is currently held by the Pope.
At that point, becoming a Catholic was my only viable option.
I really hadn’t wanted to become a Catholic. But doing so made sense: and would continue making sense, no matter how I was feeling. I enjoy being Catholic, by the way: and that’s yet another topic.
Why Human Life Matters
A public session during Vatican II. (1960s)
“Humanae vitae” isn’t a Vatican II document, but it came in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
I see Vatican II as part what the Church has been doing recently, reviewing and revising our procedures and practices. It’s something we do on a massive scale every half-millennium or so. Procedures may change, our principles don’t, and I’ll get back to that.
Vatican II ran from 1962 to 1965.
Pope St. Paul VI wrote “Humanae vitae” in 1968. It’s an encyclical letter: a term whose meaning has been changing over the centuries.3 He addressed this particular encyclical letter to anybody who’s working for the common good:
Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae Of the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI To His Venerable Brothers The Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Other Local Ordinaries In Peace and Communion With the Apostolic See, To the Clergy and Faithful of the Whole Catholic World, and to All Men of Good Will, On the Regulation of Birth (Humanae vitae, Paul VI documents, The Holy See/vatican.va)
Back before I became a Catholic, I’d noticed that it’s addressed to “the whole Catholic world, and to all men of good will”, so I didn’t feel guilty about reading it.
Being an American, I could and can see several ways a sufficiently irritable person might find the encyclical’s heading offensive. And that’s yet again another topic
But now, being a Catholic, and one who takes what the Church says seriously, I figure that reading it made sense. And I still accept the encyclical’s rules.
That’s because I think obedience makes sense. I’d better explain what I mean.
Obedience and Using my Brain
I’m a Catholic, so “the obedience of faith” is important. (Catechism, 142-165)
This obedience is not blind obedience. I should think about what I believe. (Catechism, 154-156)
Which is something of a good news / bad news situation.
On the one hand, there’s a great deal to think about: and these days I’ve got access to translations of what folks like St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas thought about what we believe.
On the other hand, as a Catholic, I’m expected to think about what I’m doing. It takes effort, and sometimes means that I veto what my emotions are telling me.
Following whatever blind impulse pops into my mind is not an option. (Catechism, 2339)
Vatican II and “Humanae vitae” offended and upset a fair number of folks. I didn’t like what I found in “Humanae vitae”, so how come I accept what it says?
Natural Law, Positive Law, and Paying Attention
I wasn’t the craziest of ‘those crazy kids’, back in the 1960s.
But I paid attention to folks who said that buying stuff we don’t need with money we don’t have to impress people we don’t like wasn’t reasonable. Not that anyone actually defined having a successful career that way, and I’m drifting off-topic.
The point is that I paid attention, and thought about what I was hearing and reading. One idea that made sense was the notion that what’s legal isn’t necessarily right: and that a culture’s mores can be wrong.
As it turns out, that horrifying — to some — idea was right. Since I’m a Catholic, I see it as the difference between natural law and positive law.
Basically, ethical rules — natural law — are written into reality’s source code. It hasn’t changed, and won’t. Some things — not many, actually — are simply wrong. Always. Everywhere. (Catechism, 1950-1960)
Positive law is, in this context, the rules we make up:4 like which side of the road I should drive on, how old I need to be to vote, and whether or not I can vote.
Sometimes positive law lines up with natural law. Sometimes it doesn’t. When that happens, we’ve got problems. (Catechism, 2273)
Seeing Human Beings as People
“Humanae vitae” goes against the grain of my culture’s values and beliefs, partly because it insists that human life is important — all human life.
I’d better explain that.
Since I’m a Catholic, I think that we’re all people, that we’re made “in the image of God”. Who we are, who our ancestors are, or what we’ve done, doesn’t matter. Every human being is a person: no matter how young or old, health or sick, we are. And since it’s a gift from God, human life is precious, sacred. (Genesis 1:26–27, 2:7; Catechism, 355-357, 361, 369-370, 1700, 1730, 1929, 2258-2283)
A century and a half back, insisting that all human beings are people and should be treated as such inspired ardent opposition.
Some folks still seem overly aware of ethnic distinctions, and that’s still another topic.
Some of today’s hot-button issues involve, my opinion, differing views on whether or not very young human beings are, legally, people: real persons who should have a right to not be killed, even if their existence is inconvenient or bothersome.
Meanwhile, Across the Pacific
Speaker Prospero Nograles receiving HLI Archdiocese of Cebu’s 2010 Humanae Vitae Award.
“The Human Life International Archdiocese of Cebu confers on Speaker Prospero Nograles (right) the Humanae Vitae Award for his ‘unwavering support for the sanctity of life and family in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Constitution.’…” (“Humanae Vitae Award” , Photo Journals, Press and Public Affairs Bureau, House of Representatives, Philippines)
One of the things I like about being Catholic is that we’re an international outfit. That helps me appreciate good news in other countries. Like a politico in the Philippines receiving a Humanae Vitae Award: and apparently not trying to cover it up.
Don’t get me wrong. I like being an American, and think my native land has more to offer than Pepsi and SpongeBob SquarePants. But I get the impression that many of us are still getting used to the idea that Catholics and other ‘foreigners’ can be Americans.
And that’s — you guessed it — even more topics.
Next, an interview with our Father Greg on The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi. I found it on YouTube, and it does a better job of introducing him than I could.
Fr. Greg Paffel: The Journey Home Interview
Valuing Human Life: All Human Life
Finally, thinking that human life is precious affects how I see capital punishment, euthanasia, medical experiments, and more:
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.
My interest in the Olympics is mild at best.
Differences of opinion regarding artistic interpretations of the Last Supper happen.
I’d prefer living in a world where my betters would realize that a drag version of “The Last Supper” would go over as well as a blackface performance of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, at least in some quarters.
For Catholics, the Last Supper is more than just a meal.
Years ago now, my father-in-law was asked if he’s conservative — or liberal.
