{"id":479,"date":"2016-10-30T01:46:00","date_gmt":"2016-10-30T01:46:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/brendans-island.com\/catholic-citizen\/?p=479"},"modified":"2025-08-26T23:25:53","modified_gmt":"2025-08-26T23:25:53","slug":"authority-superstition-progress","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/brendans-island.com\/catholic-citizen\/authority-superstition-progress\/","title":{"rendered":"Authority, Superstition, Progress"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Authority, superstition, and misapplied technophilia (it’s a real word<\/a>) rate at least one post each: but that’ll wait until another day. Days.<\/p>\n

This time I’ll take a quick look at all three, and then say why I don’t believe in Progress with a capital P \u2014 and don’t yearn for the ‘good old days.’<\/p>\n

<\/a>My attitude toward authority, real and imagined, hasn’t changed much since the ’60s. But as my wife showed me a few years back, it’s not authority I dislike.<\/p>\n

It’s pompous nitwits with delusions of competent authority that set my teeth on edge.<\/p>\n

I must respect authority, but must not<\/strong> indulge in blind obedience. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1900, 1951, 2155, 2242-2243, 2267)<\/p>\n

That’s gotten folks killed, like Thomas More and John Fisher, and I’ve talked about that before. (August 14, 2016<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Superstition is a bad idea and we shouldn’t do it. It feels a bit like religion; and can affect worship if someone gets the idea that prayer, for example, depends on ‘going through the motions.’ (Catechism, 2110-2111)<\/p>\n

I’ll grant that some Catholics are superstitious: and incredibly gullible.<\/p>\n

The tale that you can boost your property’s value by burying a statue of a particular saint was current in 2007, it popped up again in 2015, and still appears in ‘advice’ forums. It’s supposed to work like a charm: which is also a bad idea. (Catechism, 2117)<\/p>\n

<\/a>Progress, Imagined<\/h4>\n

<\/a>The ‘science and technology will make the future wonderful’ attitude was fading in my youth.<\/p>\n

I think it’s no more sensible than the ‘science and technology will destroy us all’ attitude that’s been fashionable more recently.<\/p>\n

Like I keep saying, science and technology, studying the universe and applying our new knowledge, are part of being human. What counts is how we decide to use them. (Catechism, 2292-2296)<\/p>\n

Giving science, technology, or anything else, the priority God deserves is a bad idea. (Catechism, 2112-2114)<\/p>\n

That’s why I don’t ‘believe in’ Progress<\/a> as the answer to our problems and the source of our hope.<\/p>\n

I do, however, think that progress, lower case, happens: on average, given time. Lots of time.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Sumerian Renaissance, Roman Law<\/h4>\n

<\/a>Ur-Nammu<\/a> brought a measure of prosperity and stability to folks from Akshyak<\/a> to Eridu<\/a>, although some probably yearned for the ‘good old days’ of the Akkadian Empire<\/a> or Gutian<\/a> rule.<\/p>\n

His law code<\/a> seems a bit harsh in spots. Robbery carried a death penalty, for example. Other parts seem familiar, like monetary penalties for causing injury.<\/p>\n

The Code of Ur-Nammu reflected the Sumerian Renaissance two-tier society: lu, free men and women; and arad or geme, male or female slaves. A slave could be freed, a slave and a free person could marry, but slavery is a bad idea. (Catechism, 2414)<\/p>\n

Ur-Nammu’s Sumeria wasn’t a perfect society.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Two millennia later, Rome was building roads<\/a> which tied their empire together. The roads, like my country’s Interstate<\/a> highways, had military uses.<\/p>\n

But they also helped folks travel and trade with each other.<\/p>\n

Roman law<\/a> was more complex than Ur-Nammu’s code, and arguably an improvement. Slavery<\/a>, however, was still legal; but folks could still change their status. We get a look at that in Acts 22:25<\/a>–29<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Watermills<\/a> let folks process materials like grain, ore, or wood, without having people or livestock providing power. Locks on Necho’s Canal<\/a> made moving bulk cargo a lot easier.<\/p>\n

Rome’s wasn’t a perfect society.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Radioactive Rubble and Law<\/h4>\n

<\/a>Another two millennia, and slavery still exists. But it’s illegal in several countries.<\/p>\n

Even more remarkable, I think: it’s becoming unfashionable.<\/p>\n

That’s progress. Agonizingly slow progress, but progress nonetheless.<\/p>\n

We’ve made some other major changes over the last few centuries. I think that’s a good thing, but some folks don’t.<\/p>\n

International law<\/a> in the sense of agreements between rulers, predates nations<\/a>; but didn’t get traction until the First Geneva Convention<\/a>. That was 152 years back now.<\/p>\n

The Articles of Confederation<\/a> was, arguably, an early effort at supranational law<\/a>: a form of international law, based on sovereign nations giving some of their rights to a supranational authority.<\/p>\n

The Articles of Confederation didn’t work, but the United States Constitution<\/a> has held up for about 227 years, with only one major internal war. We’re still tweaking it, but I think it’s a good effort.<\/p>\n

While digging out from World War II’s rubble \u2014 some of it radioactive \u2014 many folks decided that enough was enough. Some still act as if they prefer slaughtering each other in wholesale lots as a conflict resolution strategy.<\/p>\n

I don’t.<\/p>\n

I also don’t trust the United Nations<\/a>1<\/a><\/sup> any more than I do America’s Congress: but I’m pretty sure that it’s better than the alternative.<\/p>\n

And I’m quite sure that we can do better.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Looking Back<\/h4>\n

<\/a>
\n(From D. Gordon E. Robertson, via Wikimedia Commons, used w\/o permission.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Folks who thought science and technology, and better education, would solve all our problems were overly-optimistic. I’m oversimplifying the Idea of Progress<\/a> something fearful, and I think they had a point.<\/p>\n

<\/a>I’m living in “the future,” which isn’t nearly as good \u2014 or bad \u2014 as folks hoped or feared in my youth. On the whole, I like it: partly because I remember ‘the good old days,’ and what came before.<\/p>\n

The McCormick Reaper, patented in 1837<\/a>, didn’t end world hunger.<\/p>\n

But it was part of a process that arguably started about a dozen centuries<\/a> back. Around the mid-17th century<\/a>, rapidly-changing technology and economic systems streamlined growing and distributing food.<\/p>\n

Food still isn’t getting to all the folks who need it: but I think it’s a distribution issue.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Oliver Wendel Holmes Sr.<\/a> published “The Contagiousness of puerperal fever<\/a>” in 1843.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Ignaz Semmelweis<\/a> also noticed that fewer women died after childbirth when doctors washed their hands. That was 1847. Quite a few doctors didn’t like the idea of personal hygiene, but many years and unnecessary deaths later they started washing.<\/p>\n

I’m not at all sorry to see more women get back into the healing arts, and that’s another topic.2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a>Thomas Beddoes<\/a> and James Watt<\/a> developed a machine that produced “Factitious Airs,” nitrous oxide; publishing their results in 1794.<\/p>\n

“Laughing gas<\/a>” was a moderately popular recreational drug for the upper crust<\/a> by the early 1800s. Humphry Davy<\/a> was a nitrous oxide addict, and used it as a hangover cure<\/a>. Several decades later<\/a>, doctors started using it as an anesthetic.<\/p>\n

We’ve gotten a lot better at pain management<\/a> since then. I can use, or endure, pain. But controlling it is okay, and can be a good idea. (Catechism, 1431-1490, 2279)<\/p>\n

Francis Ronalds<\/a> developed an electric telegraph in 1816<\/a>. The British Admiralty promptly rejected it as “wholly unnecessary,” but wireless telegraph eventually caught on.<\/p>\n

<\/a>The RMS Carpathia’s<\/a> wireless operator learned that the Titanic needed help, a bit late, and the Radio Act of 1912<\/a> required ships to continuously listen for radio distress signals.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Working for Future Generations<\/h4>\n

<\/a>
\n(From Diliff, via Wikimedia Commons, used w\/o permission.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Today’s world doesn’t have any perfect societies: mine included, although I like being an American, on the whole. I also like being Catholic: part of an outfit that’s literally catholic, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2<\/a>, universal, not tied to one era or culture.<\/p>\n

We’ve been passing along the same message for two millennia: God loves us, and wants to adopt us. All of us. (Ephesians 1:3<\/a>\u20135<\/a>; John 3:17<\/a>; Catechism, 52, 1825)<\/p>\n

We’re helping build a better world, one with a greater degree of justice and charity, and respect for “the transcendent dignity of man.” (Catechism, 1928-1942, 2419-2442)<\/p>\n

More accurately, that’s what we should<\/strong> be doing. Some of us don’t act as if it’s true, but that doesn’t change our ‘to-do’ list.<\/p>\n

Building a better world for future generations is a reasonable extension of a few basic ideas: that each of us should love God, love our neighbor, and see everyone as our neighbor.3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

If we help others keep what is good and just in our societies, change what is not, and act as if we really believe that loving our neighbors makes sense: I think we can make a difference. We must be patient, though.<\/p>\n

Folks can’t be forced to embrace truth: particularly when it means giving up some cherished injustice, or long-established privileges. But I am convinced that truth wins \u2014 eventually.<\/p>\n

Maybe, if we keep working at it, two millennia from now we’ll have an “international authority with the necessary competence and power” to resolve conflicts without war. (Catechism, 2307-2317; “Gaudium et Spes<\/a>,” 79 \u00a7 4)<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\n(Cityscape, Inlakechh\/Marco Bauriedel, used w\/o permission.)<\/span><\/p>\n

And two millennia after that, we’ll still have social ills.4<\/a><\/sup> Humanity has an enormous backlog of unresolved issues. But like I said: we’re making progress. Slowly.<\/p>\n

Posts that aren’t entirely unrelated:<\/p>\n