Facts, not factoids, make the best weapons

The Catholic Gentleman has a lovely quote from Blessed John Henry Newman:

If [a gentleman] engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it.

Now, I have been reading far too much on the subject of killing the unborn, it is an evil time in which we live,( but no more evil than any other, I believe - it is evil in the exact proportion by which mankind makes it evil through pride, and unwise exercising of the gift of free will - but I digress.)

It is common for pro-life critics of using hEsc, (that's "human embryo stem cells," rebranded,) to declare that for all the hype and celebrity advertising on the glories of using babies for parts, the ONLY actual useful therapies to derive from stem cell research come from adult stem cells.

And cursory reading by non-experts, (of which I am certainly one,) would certainly lead one to that conclusion.
Note the phrasing for instance, (I've added emphasis,)  on this  FAQs page from the government:

The development of stem cell lines that can produce many tissues of the human body is an important scientific breakthrough. This research has the potential to revulutionize [sic] the practice of medicine.... Given the enormous promise of stem cell therapies ..... it is important to simultaneously pursue all lines of research and search for the very best sources of these cells.

Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research?
Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be. However, a newer type of reprogrammed adult cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells, has proven to be pluripotent.

 Why are doctors and scientists so excited about human embryonic stem cells?
Stem cells have potential in many different areas of health and medical research. To start with, studying stem cells will help us to understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are.

 (and here's the money obfuscation quote)
Have human embryonic stem cells been used successfully to treat any human diseases yet? 
Stem cell research offers hope for treating many human diseases.
 (So that's a "no"?)
Click here to read a description of the current status of stem cells and human disease therapies.
(And if you do that, you get a page with more "hopes,"mays" "thought to offers," "potentials," and "still studyings."   Oh, and "early days yets.")

What will be the best type of stem cell to use for therapy?
 Pluripotent stem cells, while having great therapeutic potential, face formidable technical challenges. First, scientists must learn how to control their development into all the different types of cells in the body. Second, the cells now available for research are likely to be rejected by a patient's immune system. Another serious consideration is that the idea of using stem cells from human embryos or human fetal tissue troubles many people on ethical grounds. Until recently, there was little evidence that multipotent adult stem cells could change course and provide the flexibility that researchers need in order to address all the medical diseases and disorders they would like to. New findings in animals, however, suggest that even after a stem cell has begun to specialize, it may be more flexible than previously thought.

Odd, no, that well, we've only been working with embryonic cells a short time is cited as an excuse for lack of positive developements with embryonic cells, but  no such apology is needed for work with adult stem cell therapy which seems to have been pursued for a shorter time?

Anyway, a quick google search will reveal that almost all reports of "success" with embryonic stem cell research refer to successful creation of lines, or methods of study, or splicing of various component thereof, or growing something inside an animal -- NOT to therapies, cures, actual useful treatment of suffering human beings.
This "success" only in the world where, "The operation was a success, but the patient died," is not a sick joke.

So yeah, virtually all success so far has been acheived with non-embryonic stem cells.

BUT - and its a big but, (hope you heard Pee-wee's voice as you read that,) there may have been a successful hEsc therapy, Dr Robert Lanza's work on eyes at the Jule Stein Center.
The fact that there doesn't seem to be any follow-up news since the sixth month mark or so when it made a big splash in the press may or may not be significant.
It does seem likely that if it had actually worked we would have heard more about it in the past two years, and I am not some master googler, there may be news out there.

But either way, I think we should be cautious about claiming there has been NO successful therapy as a result of embryonic stem cell research, better to make a case with the truth.

(And of course, the success of hEsc is not really germane to the issue of whether it is morally acceptable to take parts from one live human being, in no condition to give consent, to aid another.)

The Triple Cross...

... no, not sabotage and spying, gestures.

It is worth pointing out that No. 134's indication for the people to make the triple sign of the cross is a novelty of the third edition of the Roman Missal. It was not found in the corresponding No. 95 of the earlier GIRM from the 1970s, where the gesture was prescribed only for the minister reading the Gospel. In making this indication the missal simply recognizes a practice which had already become almost universal among the faithful over the centuries.

I had wondered about that when the new edition came out, (though not enough to look into it,) and apparently my memory of all that was correct.

(This is timely for me, because I was thinking of devising  "Simon Peter Says, a game of liturgical gestures to play when we need to blow off some energy when things get too rambunctious in RelEd.)

"Object and outline teaching; a guide book for Sunday-school workers. Designed to explain, defend, and exemplify the use of objects, the blackboard, maps, and pictures in Sunday-school teaching"

Yes, this is the name of an actual published book, part of the NYC Library holdings, apparently because in 1871 there was dissension in the ranks of (presumably protestant,) catechists over whether it was right to use anything other than the Bible and the spoken word to instruct ones charges.

'Cause ya know, the blackboard is a "secular machine"...

Hmmm, come to think of that, maybe that's why the day erase board has gained such prominence - its color is more virtuous!

Actually, such struggles go on today in all seriousness - is a comic book graphic Bible more  demonstrably beneficial than potentially harmful on balance?


The author, Henry C McCook expresses sympathy with those who oppose the use of illustration to hand on their faith, "not because I fear its proper  use, but because I see how readily it may be abused, and how great are the evils of its abuse."
I suspect there's a little of the "we're not like those Catholic, who pray to graven images" streak of roundhead iconoclasm in play here.

And of course, he is right - this is, boiled down, the same fight I am fighting regarding pop/rock/folk/classical/mariachi/Victorian ballad/rap/children's song perfectly apt for some particular constituency's devotions, but utterly unsuited to liturgy.

Anyway, clearly, the same battle has raged for many a year, on many a front.

I must, however, learn more about "the quackery of art in books."

Can God change His mInd?

Yeah, yeah, I know, do not let my Lord be angry, what if I find but 30 righteous men in Sodom?

But seriously, no one thinks Abraham wheedled that out of the Lord, no matter how the dialogue reads on the face of it, do they? it is really just a memorable depiction of the Father's boundless mercy, that he is willing to spare the sinful people if there is the merest shred of decency left in the city. (And there ain't.)

But what about calling the persistent Canaanite woman... well,  a bitch, to her face?

(I meant to write on this a while ago, and found myself deep in the woods, and forgot about it and just remembered it.)

I've heard absurd sermons about Jesus being unspeakably rude, and the woman schooling Him; and slightly less so but still huh?-worthy homilies that by seeming to refuse, teaching that foreign gal both humility and stick-to-itiveness in prayer, (and wouldn't such verisimilitude on His part be, uh... lying?)

But how about this?

And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.” But He did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.” He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children* and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.

Matthew 15

That phrase, "He said in reply" -- to whom is He replying?
The Evangleist has already stated that He said not a word in answer to her -so it must be His DISCIPLES to whom He speaks.

It is nothing less than blasphemy to think that He didn't know what His ministry was,  to whom His ministry was, of course He knew -- He is speaking to His disciples, His Jewish disciples, He is acknowledging to them that, yeah, He is there for the "lost sheep of Israel," (as they already believe) --  but then, shockingly, He demonstrates quite clearly that SHE is among these "lost sheep of Israel," that from now on we are ALL of us members of the chosen race, the royal priesthood, the people set apart.

"It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs."

Okay, it is not right, it would not be right -- does He dissemble when he says this? or is He speaking the truth but then goes and does WHAT IS NOT RIGHT by granting her prayer?

Who dares suggest so?

He is acknowledging, very publicly that she is indeed a daughter of God, that she is, that we all are, the Father's beloved children.

One last thought on Teilhard, his "rehabilitation" and a Former Pope...

In what world is "in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency toward the biological approach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctly and in any case made them accessible once again," [all emphasis supplied,] speaking in "glowing" terms?

How did Blessed Theresa of Calcutta put it, "something beautiful for God"?

Our time, talent and treasure... well, we need to prioritize, right?
Most of life is about balancing conflicting, I'll even say GOODS.
Most people who sin or err don't consciously neglect a Good in favor of an Evil, they neglect a greater value in pursuit of a lesser one. (Slippery slopes, and all that.... sports and physical culture are good, but how many Catholic school systems regularly schedule events on Sunday mornings?)

Anyway, stumbled across mention of the CMAA chaplain on the Interwebs, (have I mentioned how much I love what a "guy" he is? as are so many of the priests one meets at Colloquium.)

I present a quote from Father Pasley, rector of Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin New Jersey, who wrote on the Feast of the Assumption: “The worship of God should not be haphazard. It should not be cheap and commonplace. It should never be rushed to get it over with….Modern secular society has put its time, talent and money into.....self-indulgence, pleasure and material comfort. The world shows us what it considers important. My good friends, we [Catholics] counter with a very different view.”

Or do we?

"Conscious Evolution" and Missionary Zeal

Okay, perhaps allowing myself to be a little too contemptuous of, or at least annoyed by jargon, but I think I have a legitimate beef - I think too often neologisms or phrases are a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.
If what you think is controversial, or arguable, or dissenting, or flat wrong in the minds of those with whom you are pretending to be in solidarity and communion -- say it in a way that incomprehensible, or even essentially meaningless in context, giving you plausible deniability when you are called out on your agenda.
(I have discovered, for instance, that if at the beginning of a conversation you seize the buzz-word "uplifting" and describe, say, Gregorian chant thusly, proponents of sacchro/sacro-pop are pretty much incapable of making any claims for the aptness of praise music for liturgical use other than that people "like" it. "Luminous" and "vibrant" are similarly misused all the time.)

RelEd is tailor made for such shenanigans, comprising as it does the twin fields of Faith and Education, both of which have fallen on hard times in the common sense department.

Anyway with all the nattering about the LCWR, or whatever order those letters go in, of late, one reads; and I must admit, the great bugbear of "conscious evolution" seems to me a defensible concept - depending on how slippery its meaning is allowed to be.
It seems to me, as a spiritual concept, it ought to mean something closer to intentional metanoia, (see? I'm good at jargon!) a deliberate and if need be arduous conversion.
Evolution, after all, means little more than change, hopefully for the better.

But then its champions start babbling.

 Cardinal [Muller's]  words... [offer] an opportunity to say a few words about conscious evolution and, more broadly, the mutual engagement of science and religion.
The term “conscious evolution” was not coined by Barbara Marx Hubbard, although she has made significant contributions in understanding the implications of conscious evolution for our age. The term itself emerges from the sciences of evolutionary biology, quantum physics and cognitive neuroscience, among others. The term does not belong to science per se but is descriptive of our species, Homo sapien sapien: evolution brought to self-reflective awareness. To use the words of the renowned Jesuit Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, “We are the universe become conscious of itself.”

Seriously,  I know you were a great and wise soul, but we are NOT the universe, conscious, comatose or otherwise.
We're just not.
We're a pretty tiny part of it, actually. (Ya know, you'd think those who often seem more involved with saving the planet than saving souls, saving natural resources than saving unborn lives, would bristle at  hinting at such human exceptionalism, but there you have it.)
And then, this.

 We are the ones “who know that we know” (Homo sapien sapiens); hence it is important to reflect on our choices and decisions for the future. Conscious evolution refers to the idea, expressed by Teilhard, that we humans are the arrow of evolution, the crest of the ongoing evolution of the universe. We are co-creators of an unfinished evolutionary process toward more being.

What the hellenism does "more being" mean in this context?
Co-creator? Okay, cooperators with the Creator...
Unfinished evolutionary process?
All right,  every day, in every way, we're getting better and better -- as we journey toward the Kingdom and our final destination.

But "toward more being"?
What is that supposed to mean?
Greater actualization of potential?
But it could mean anything, and therefore means nothing.

I know Teilhard de Chardin contrasts it, ("plus-etre") with "well-being" and perhaps in French but really..... cant and gibberish.

In fact, I think it is dangerous to use such a phrase alongside the word "evolution" in discussion of spiritual growth, since in the paradigm of evolution of species, yeah, the objective is more- rather than well- being, nature does not care about our happiness or goodness or comfort or beauty or Godliness - the objective of all things in nature is simply to reproduce as proliferately, (profligately?) as possible, to broadcast their genetic material, to blanket the universe with their  DNA, to spread seed -- with an utter disregard for any other creature's existence except as it can be exploited to ones own advantage.

So basically, with Conscious Evolution we could be talking either ecological hegemony, (which seems at odds with the tree-hugger reputation of most of its adherents,)  or, if we mean spiritual evolution, such zealous and triumphant proselytization that it leads to universal conversion, which again, seems to be against the spirit of ecumenism as understood b those seem adherents.

Universal.
Oh.
Um... Catholic.

Hmmm.... maybe they are on to something.

RIP, Richard Attenborough

I know nothing about Sir Richard Attenborough's personality, his life, his politics -- nor do I wish to. (I admit to no longer being able to enjoy Peter Fry's performances, thanks to TMI.)

But I have always loved him in movies, his characters, even when morally complex, even when outright reprehensible, always had a core of decency, or at least the potential for decency that is a feature of our common humanity.

We are none of us monsters, even when we behave monstrously.

I watched the Great Escape on late night television, baby-sitting, and despite the screen-time given to some yahoo on a motorcycle, found Attenborough, not just the moral center, but the center of the movie. (I was honestly startled to learn later in what esteem Steve McQueen was and is held by movie buffs.)

I think the first thing I'd seen him in was (again, all that baby-siting,) a heart-breaking thing about labor and unions and strike-breaking whose title I can't recall.

And although remakes are usually stupid/inferior/unnecessary, take you pick; and although the earlier one was a hit and his, I believe, was not, Attenborough's Kris Kringle was a gem and the movie a fitting setting for it.

(I can't even think of the scene with the luminous little deaf actress without choking up, and it's not meds this time...)

Beginning another year of RelEd

Took me a while to realize what all the acronym and abbreviations I see are meant to indicate - catechists like jargon as much as those in any line, I suppose.

Anyway, RelEd is how we are currently naming the processes, although most of the quasi-official papers that pass through our hands seem to use "CCD", a term that if thought was a relic of my remote youth.

Although I am NOT looking forward to it, I will be receiving some sort of formation and certification myself -- I have long been dead wary of any endeavor necessitating interaction with a facilitator, (particularly one who refers to herself as a facilitator,) although the woman in my parish scheduled is a delight, and a well-spring of humility.

There is so much mis[leading]information about on Catholicism and catechesis, you know? even from what one would expect to be orthodox sources.

Not quite misinformation, not literally wrong, but implying untruths by means of selectively edited truths.

I told some other catechists that I would forward some links that I thought would make their lives easier, (the Compendium, for instance,) because our DRE, thankfully, is adamant that we are to embrace the magisterium, not offer opinion at odd with it, and not answer questions from a place of ignorance, or with conjecture. (This is a reiteration of the message in a moderately stern missive our deacon sent to all of us last year, mid-year.)

YEAH!

I am reluctant to forward some links because of the dissent to which they may, or actually do, then link. One really interesting, valid and unobjectionable article, about methods of presenting the Faith according to the age of listeners happily provided links more on the subject from an organ that purports to offer "Catholic" "reporting" -- yet they have no quibble with identifying someone as a "Roman Catholic woman priest."

Such a periodical is not Catholic and cannot be trusted to present a Catholic perspective. Period. The end.

I am leary of otherbooks, magazines, forums, that insist on presenting excessively limited, (or is that a contradiction in terms?) views of Church history or ecclesiology -- Vatican II is often conferred some kind of unique, stand-alone authority as if it were the only council ever, or at least the only one that "counted," (you know how we Catholics like to ask if things "count,") rather as if it were in contradiction instead of  continuity with what preceded it.

Anyway, I shall keep an open mind going into whichever certification process I choose.

At least one of the programs sounds content dense, so at least it won't be boring.

Only Vegans Are Morally Entitled To Object to Abortion?

 
So much for the voice of reason.

Should We Care If Human Beings Are Aborted "Before They Have Human Feelings"?

In that case, Richard Dawkins is still eligible wouldn't you think?

Or is it possible that the theophobe has human feelings, just suppresses them?

Budding atheists wondering whether Richard Dawkins is in need of a little time away from Twitter to reflect on the past few weeks are about to have their (lack of) prayers answered. The philosopher has managed ... to voice his opinions on what it would be ethical for a mother who is informed that her unborn child has Down Syndrome to do....
 after engaging in conversation with a number of users, his ethical values appeared to come a little unstuck. “994 human beings with Down's Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?” @AidanMcCourt asked. “Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings,” Dawkins responded. ...
“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he tweeted back.

And what, you may ask, was his earlier contretemps? ("contwittertemps"?)

Looking on the bright side of date rape and paedophilia.





(Kind of like Whoopi Goldberg's "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape," apologia for Roman Polanski?)

Seriously though, the fact that this man's thoughts are accorded respect or given any notice at all outside of Twitter and the like is appalling.

"I am the one who spices!"

Perhaps when my eyes are swollen and, for want of a better word... sticky?...  is not the best time to be grinding up chiles and making hot sauce.
But the peppers won't keep forever, (and won't be available long,) and sometimes you need to bring a little heat.
And wouldn't you know, hot sauce is one of those things made with corn "vinegar," (a contradiction in terms according to an etymologically fastidious friend, since corn grows on stalks not vines,) which I must therefore eschew except on rare occasions.
Anyway, the Interwebs, arbiter of all truths, tells me that Hot Sauce is easy and fun to make, and delicious proportionate to the individuality one brings to it, and I made such magnificent mayonnaise, (I am not kidding, it was sensational!) I decided to give it a whirl, (literally, thank you, Food Processor, I think I'd miss you most of all.)
One site suggested even normal people ought to go "full-on Walter White," with the protective gear, so I suppose Exemplar of Eczema as I am, I should have been careful.
But was I?
No, not really.

I am not in danger,  I am the danger. A guy eats some hot sauce and burns his mouth and makes his eyes water and you think that of me?

No.

I am the one who made the hot sauce!

 

So we'll see - it smells fantastic, but I think it should age a bit? (And I think I'll sneak in a little agave)

Pretty, Pretty....

 or should that be "weepy, weepy"?

Really, my memory...

It never occurred to me until I was drifting off to sleep last night that there was a logical explanation for my emotions being so unwontedly close to the surface as I  read yesterday - trying a new steroid, and one that in the past has made a member of my family flat-out bat-guano crazy.

My typical excema face is this:

Last time I had a really debilitating flare-up it was this:

This most recent episode?

 Travel, heck,. going out for a bite to eat carries a risk - what caused the latest?

Who knows... a hidden, or at least unsuspected ingredient in a meal or snack? (the remarkable diner cake I tried anyway, making the whole thing my fault?) the detergent with which some other family member or hotel laundered sheets? the softener? the food industry switching over to a corn-based source for a hitherto safe food? (I'm looking at you, cider vinegar.) Whatever was in bloom near the NY cottage? the mold in the NJ cabin? ('cause the outhouse wasn't disincentive enough...) a European ale which has moved production over to a North American brewery? borrowed shampoo?

Maybe the dread demon Febreze...

Ah well, all's well now.

Loving "Magnificat" yet Again

I hadn't noticed, till this morning's homily pointed it out, that the Queenship of Mary is the octave of the Assumption.

(We need more octaves!!!!!!)

The Magnificat had this from Hans Urs von Balthasar

Today’s feast reminds us that holiness means depending on God. The Queenship of Mary invites us to exercise our obedience to God in a way that results in, not abject submission, but likeness. 

Isn't that lovely? isn't that perfect? Because she, though the Mother of God, is also the Child of God -- like us, not God's slave, but His child -- and a child wants nothing more than to grow up to be just like a beloved parent.

Not submission, but likeness.

Reader at Mass today, had looked over the OT, and the psalm, pointed the Gospel acclamation, (at least in my head...)

No "hard words." I know to beware of "prophecy" and "prophesy."

I'd always loved that passage from Ezechiel, when it came up in the Stations we did at the parish where I used to live, loved proclaiming it, ("... and I will do it.")

And I got to it, "O my people..." and I just lost it.
My voice wavered, though it didn't crack; I took long deep breaths, but didn't sob or gasp; my eyes were moist, but I didn't actually weep.

But it was noticeable, very noticeable.

When my North, my South, my East and West, my working week and my Sunday rest, my noon, my midnight, my talk, my song was actually dying, (being a bit melodramatic, aren't we?) I would occasionally luck out, and be called upon to read something that struck close to home, but never faltered, what was going on today?

Recently returned from travel to inter the remains of the relative I've always been told I was most like; daily, almost hourly updates on the status of a dying relative; the news, all the death in the news, nothing but death.... I don't know.

None of these really affect me, I'm ashamed to say - or so I would have thought.

A stranger came up after Mass, and sheepishly asked me if he could help, if there was something he could do,  (no one would ever have noticed if construction hadn't moved our altar into the nave temporarily.)

People are good.

And God is great.

Thus says the Lord God:
O my people, I will open your graves
and have you rise from them,
and bring you back to the land of Israel.
Then you shall know that I am the Lord,
when I open your graves and have you rise from them,
O my people!
I will put my spirit in you that you may live,
and I will settle you upon your land;
thus you shall know that I am the Lord.
I have promised, and I will do it, says the Lord.

And you know what? He will.