Seven Quick Takes (v31): Making Light of the Devil

--1--

The devil's in the details: this is what my laser mode looked like Monday night.

It looks like he's had a rough night on Bald Mountain. Perhaps it's because he knows that Easter is nearly here.

--2--

That this is the mode (read, spot) of my laser remind me of Saint Paul's warning:  "And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). I suppose he was going for literally "angel of light," meaning "angel made out of light."

--3--

Given the size of that screen, he must be an awfully tiny devil. Perhaps this is a reminder that no matter how big and bad our sins, they are still much smaller than God's mercy for those who are contrite. Is it any surprise then that the Devil may be overwhelmed by the grace given to a truly repentant sinner*?

*I for one went to confession the next day. It's a start.

--4--

On the other hand, it's also a reminder that the little things can trip us up. This is a point which is apparently lost on the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Not all sins are mortal, but they all attempt to chip away at charity, and they can all lead to bigger sins.

--5--

Small though this beam is, it would still be quick blinding if I were to glance into it. Indeed, it is brighter for having all of that energy concentrated into a small area. This reminds me of two tricks which the devil may use against us. The first is that he'll make our small sins seem larger than they are, either to lead us into despair or to cause us to ignore (or miss) our larger sins. The second is that he can tempt us to overlook them entirely, which causes us to slowly become blind to sin, including progressively bigger sins. The two are related, of course.

--6--

The laser itself is actually infrared, centered at 873 nm. This means that it would be invisible to our eyes: not exactly useful for seeing clearly. On the other hand, when amplified it has ample power to burn the skin (and those infrared burns are painful)--it is, after all, a terawatt laser. Even as an angel of light, the devil must give off more heat than light. The devil loves to capture a soul while giving back nothing in return, or to instigate attacks on one group (especially the Church) under the guise of helping another, especially if the supposed help isn't actually very helpful. Thus, for example, the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate* attacks the conscience rights of faithful Catholic employers under the guise of making contraception more readily available to women. Yet contraception is already quite readily available**, and this availability is not itself actually a good thing.

*No, I'm not saying that it was written by the devil himself. However, Satan (if not Moloch) surely did have some hand in it, even if we grant that everybody else involved has the best of intentions, since the actual effect is to be the persecution of the Church and to attempt to subvert the Catholic teaching on contraception, not to mention sterilization (and yes, abortion).
**If, as some have claimed, 99% of women and 98% of Catholic women have used contraception, then odds are that 100% had access to it. The claim is of course false, but its plausibility relies on the assumption that 100% of women must have had access to contraception.

--7--

Finally, the ccd camera saw this image after a series of neutral density (nd) filters. For those who are not familiar with nd filters, they are basically dark-colored pieces of glass. Like the ccd, we see as through a glass, darkly (1 Corinthians 13). We see neither the good nor the evil we do in its fullness, nor do we see its full effects. The smallest trifling kindness on our part can be the salvation of another; the least evil  become the proverbial straw which broke the camel's back. Neither do we see God nor His angels nor the demons of Hell perfectly in this life, for to do so would be more than we could bear (see Exodus 33:20). But we can pray to God, as St Thomas Aquinas did,

"Creator of all things, true source of Light and Wisdom, lofty source of all Being, graciously let a ray of Your brilliance penetrate into the darkness of my understanding and take from me the double darkness in which I have been born, sin and ignorance."

-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

Trifling Kindness

My friend Mr Colin Gormley has posted his latest submission to IGNITUM TODAY. An excerpt:

 "Each of those girls took maybe five seconds at most to write their name on the card.  But that five seconds saved my life."... So the next time an opportunity to do good, even something seemingly trivial, do it.  You just might save a life.

Thinking about this, I am left to ask: is there such a thing as a trifling kindness? I think that the answer must ultimately be paradoxical. Of course there are "small kindnesses," or trivial actions which we perform with hardly a thought otherwise; when we show these small kindnesses, there is but little effort on our own part: a smile to a stranger or "maybe five seconds at the most" to sign off on a sympathy card (for example). I would hardly write home about either, and in the former case at least may not even remember crossing paths with that stranger.

On the other hand, I can never know the effect that either has. Did my smile brighten the darkest day of the stranger's life, or did my signature (let alone any thought I might include with it) save it recipient from despairing by the simple fact that someone might care? In a world which witnesses plenty of evil, even so called "natural" evil--fires and earthquakes and strong winds, for example--these trifling kindnesses are as a still small voice offering comfort and succor. The small kindnesses may gently suggest hope in a world of despair and offer joy in an age of chaos.

Nicene Guys: Tuth, Convenience, and Sloth

The New York Times--that paper which Fr John Zuhlsdorf half-seriously calls Hell's Bible has of late been doing its best to proselytize for Hell, or at the very least to proselytize against that Church which is tasked with storming the gates of Hell. Fresh off of publishing the anti-Catholic ad calling for lax and liberal Catholics to quit the Church, they offer up a piece by Mr Frank Bruni about his college roommate, a supposedly faithful Catholic who later left the Church to become an abortionist. I suppose if nothing else, it serves as an interesting cautionary tale [1] about the need to hold fast to the Faith which has been handed down to us, and the need to run our race to the very end: the life of faith is more a marathon than a 40 yard dash, but I digress.

The column by Mr Bruni certainly causes us to ask [2], as Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler does ask, whether or not the point of this is really to get at the truth of the Catholic Faith (or, for that matter, at the goodness or lack thereof of abortion). Echoing Chesterton in her line of reasoning, Mrs Fulwiler writes...

Too often, we examine a moral precept, determine that it is hard, and then leap across a logical chasm to assume that it is therefore false. Stories like the pro-lifer getting an abortion aren’t any kind of coup for the pro-choice movement, just as stories of Christians violating the beliefs they profess don’t indicate anything either way about the validity of Christianity. These examples are often cited with an unspoken (and sometimes spoken) conclusion along the lines of, “See? Your beliefs are extremely difficult to follow!” Yet there is another, far more important question that should come next, one that is too often left unasked: “But are these beliefs true?”

Read the rest on the Nicene Guys site.

Three Links Wednesday (vol. XII)

"Far off hymns and funeral marches/sound the same again
my ears are worn and weary strangers/in a strange land"
-Audrey Assad

--I--

I've been enjoying the writing of Mr Mark Steyn of late. Here he is discussing Rick Santorum's presidential candidacy--and also the relationship between social/cultural conservatism and fiscal conservatism (even if Santorum is not much of the latter):

If there's a follow-up question, it tends to be about why he's demonizing Satan, so to speak. "Well, there's a lot of things said in the heat of a primary campaign," I say. "I'm sure by the time of the convention he and Satan will have patched up their differences. Wouldn't rule out Rick offering the prince of darkness the vice-presidential slot in the interests of unity. Dream ticket, and all that."...

Well, okay, say the Santorum detractors, but you guys are supposed to be the small-government crowd. Why is this any business of the state? A fair point, but one that cuts both ways. Single women are the most enthusiastic constituency for big government: A kiss on the hand may be quite continental, but statism is a girl's best friend. One can argue about whether the death of marriage leads to big government or vice versa, but simply raising the topic shouldn't put one beyond the pale, should it?

Well said on both accounts, that. The problem with Santorum is not his social policy: this he gets mostly right, which is probably why the media tries to make him look like an advocate for whatever passes as the Christian form of Sharia law*. His major electability problem comes from losing his last major election (and the manner in which that happened)**, though the media's out-and-out bias against anything remotely resembling conservatism would probably hurt his general election chances. His biggest problem in general (compared to the other candidates) is that he would bring us more of the same as the George W Bush era big government "compassionate conservatism" (and all the fiscal irresponsibility and expansions of federal powers which that entails) which we really don't need.

*The circumlocution is especially telling here. Does nobody else find it odd that there is no actual single word which has the meaning of the phrase "Christian version of Sharia law?" There is no such thing, any more than there is such as a thing as "a secularist version of Sharia law," which is at least as apt a description of certain laws favored by secularists as it is of Santorum's policies. In any case, the rhetoric used by some of the secularists (see "legislative equality") would certainly seem to be every bit as "theocratic" as Santorum's, albeit against theism instead of with it. Seculacracy?
**Though, oddly enough, he actually does just fine as far as electability goes, if polls are to be trusted. 

--II--

Professor Mike Adams has written a Swiftian defense of murder in the case of people whose fathers are rapists:

It should be evident from the foregoing that it is high time that we stop playing games with human equality. We all know the unborn are persons. And we’ve been killing them in the womb for years. In fact, we’ve been enshrining the practice in the constitution since 1973. If we say that the reason we have been doing so is that the unborn are only “potential” persons then we must be prepared for some pretty broad implications.

I propose instead that we carve out a narrow defense to homicide that allows us to kill products of rape because they remind us of a painful violent event. That is the best way to deal with things from my perspective. It will make the world appear to be a better place. Of course, there will be more murder. But it will seem like there is less rape. And that will make all the killing worth our while.

There may be no easy answers to some moral questions, but this does not mean that there are no right answers.The rights answer in this case is not easy, though it should be obvious: we ought not murder the child for the sake of the father's sins.

--III--

USA Today has an article concerning a survey of lapsed Catholics which asks why they've left the Church (tip o' the cap to Mr Kevin Knight):

Their reasons ranged from the personal ("the pastor who crowned himself king and looks down on all") to the political ("eliminate the extreme conservative haranguing") to the doctrinal ("don't spend so much time on issues like homosexuality and birth control").

In addition, they said, they didn't like the church's handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal and were upset that divorced and remarried Catholics are unwelcome at Mass....Respondents also said they were troubled by the church's views of gays, same-sex marriage, women priests and the handling of the sex abuse crisis....The respondents also called for better homilies, better music and more accountability of the church staff.

 Some of these are critiques that I've had myself: better music*, better homilies, the way the sex-abuse scandal was handled to the extent that it was handled badly. Some can to some extent actually be improved by some effort on the part of the laity--e.g. accountability of the Church staff--and some requires more humility on the part of the pastors ("arrogant priests"), but not only on their part (there are far more arrogant parishioners than arrogant priests).

Others are points on which the Church not only won't change, but simply can't: the moral and doctrinal matters. She cannot, for example, begin ordaining women to the priesthood, even if every member of the Church wanted this to happen. Ditto for same-sex marriage: it is lacking in the material cause of a sacramental marriage, and so cannot actually be one, whatever the state or civil society tries to do. There are, on the other hand, some things which the Church possibly could do to ameliorate these things, both on a large scale (e.g. female cardinals) and on a local scale (e.g. actually talking about the "hard" moral teachings in the homilies and not relegating these things to a Monday night study group which reaches at best 1% of the parish). For those of us who actually do go to Mass regularly, these hard teachings on topics such as contraception, homosexual relations, and for that matter fornication are rarely if ever discussed in Mass save at times like this when an actual all-out attack is mad against the Church, e.g. via Obama's increasingly tyrannical HHS Mandate and Health Care Reform.

*Though I'm kind of spoiled both at home and in my parish in that department. Our pastor's and deacon's homilies are usually pretty good, too. That's what you get when the pastor is an organist with a Ph.D. in theology of some sort, in addition to the training he did in seminary.

--Bonus--

.
The indefatigable defender of religious liberty Mr Frank Weathers has a link to a site where we can submit a written bit of protest against the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate.

Seven Quick Takes (v30): Ramblings and Musings

--1--

Must all miracles appear as signs and wonders? The supernatural special effects are cool and all, but how does it affect us to see the sun dance in the sky or a holy woman float in her ecstasy? Sure, these things can inspire conversions, but they can also be rationalized away by a convinced or committed unbeliever. Of much greater impact is the seemingly natural miracle, the sickness which knocks a man from his high horse or the war-wound which causes him to reconsider his life.

--2--

I wanted to share a drink recipe. Today's saint is St Toribio Alfonso de Mogrovejo, a Spanish saint who (along with St Rose of Lima) was the first of the saints of the New world, serving as a bishop in Peru. Therefore, it is fitting that today's drink is made from a New World booze: rum. I say rum, you say punch, and then i hit you. I say rum, and then you say "Roman Coke!" and I smile and get you a glass. Ah, but this will not literally be rum-and-coke, but rum and root beer. I'm not familiar enough with the Peruvian rums to recommend one; I used Captain Morgan's Private Stock (spiced rum), and Henry Weinhard's root beer: one shot of rum, one (12 oz) bottle of root beer, mix lightly (but not to a froth!), and enjoy. I find that root beer matches spiced rums better than coke--cream soda also works well.

--3--

This picture has been making the rounds:

I think I'll stick to khakis pants (or, heck, even jeans which fit me) and a bow-tie, thank you.

--4--

I'm currently reading through 'The Quest for the Holy Grail," written by an anonymous Frenchman of the thirteenth century. It's a rather fun story and filled with adventures and allegories; on the other hand, there are frequent breaks in the story in which the allegories are explained to the characters by wise men and hermits and anchorites. I've also been enjoying some of the prayers which the characters pray. An excerpt from one of Sir Perceval's prayers:

"Lord, be Thou my shepherd, my defender and my guide, that I may be counted among Thy sheep. And should it happen, gracious Lord, that I were the hundredth sheep, the silly one and weak, that strayed away in folly into the wilderness, do Thou have pity on me, Lord, and do not leave me in the wilderness, but bring me back to Thy fold, which is Holy Church and holy faith, there where all good sheep are, and upright men and faithful Christians all, so that the enemy, who wants nothing of me but the substance, which is the soul, may not find me unguarded."

It's also nice to read a story in which the saint figure--Sir Gallahad--is the paragon of both virtue and chivalry, a true and bold knight and a virtuous, indeed saintly, man.

--5--

One of the pitfalls to doing research in high-intensity laser science is that it's often difficult to explain my experimental parameters and constraints to the engineers who manufacture the parts I need (let alone to anyone else). Case in point: I need a very thin lens made from magnesium fluoride, which happens to have a low group velocity dispersion (GVD)*. This is relevant to my experiment, in-as-much as a short duration pulse will stretch out in time, and a larger GVD will mean more pulse stretching (which is basically bad).

On the left is the refractive index vs wavelength; 0.4 microns (the smallest wavelengths) are ~blue-violet, 0.6 microns are ~ red, 0.8 is near infra-red. The speed of light traveling through a medium is v ~c/n, where c ~2.997E8 m/s^2 is the speed of light in a vacuum, and n is the refractive index shown above. The right graph shows the effects of GVD on my pulse by showing how much a bandwidth-limited 30 fs pulse stretches as it travels through a piece of magnesium fluoride, thanks to the redder (longer wavelength) parts outrunning the bluer (shorter wavelength) parts of the pulse.

However, what is more relevant is the nonlinear self-focusing, the nonlinear refractive index, and the B-Integral, which are of crucial importance to my experiment (which is, after all, done at high-intensity). Unfortunately, most people (and especially, most optical-materials engineers) don't really encounter this kind of problem very frequently, and hence assume that I only care about the GVD. They therefore become very confused when I explain that yes, I do want a really thin lens (6mm thickness on-center, for a 3" diameter lens), but that I also need a good surface quality (since this can also cause changes in the mode shape/size/focal location/fine structure). They also tend not to have any alternative suggestions (e.g. suggestions for some other material with a smaller n2 value), nor do the companies in question tend to have such materials available from which to make lenses in the first place. Ah, the travails of science.

*GVD: think of this as saying that the speed of light traveling through the glass depends on the wavelength or frequency of the light. Thus, for example, blue light will travel more slowly than red light.

--6--

Professor Mike Adams had a nice little zinger quote: "If young people knew what 'a trillion' meant then 'no worries' wouldn't be their favorite saying." Yes, the federal debt--like personal debt, in particular consumer debt--is a moral problem and not merely an economic one. The economic problem is the easy one to solve: don't spend more than you make. The moral problem is a bit harder.

--7--

Speaking of moral problems, it's twelve o'clock and the tyrannical HHS contraception/sterilization/abortifacent mandate still hasn't been rescinded.

-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

Three Links Wednesday (vol. XI)

There will be a nationwide series of rallies for religious freedom this Friday. I will be unable to attend, alas, but I do hope they will be well-attended despite being in the middle of a work day.

--I--

Monsignor Charles Pope considers what is our greatest problem, as individuals and as a society. It is our sin, and our worldly-mindedness: we care more for material things than spiritual things, and more for financial success and earthy honors than for holiness and the things above. To wit:

One day his father proudly says to the Catholic pastor, “Great news! John has gotten a full scholarship to Princeton.” And the pastor says “Great!” When what he should say to the father is “OK fine. Now let’s find out who is going to preach the gospel to him up there. You know that it will be, (like most college campuses), a moral cesspool of fornication and drinking. So, if we’re not serious about John’s spiritual life, he may go in there, come out a big-wig lawyer, and yet be heading straight for Hell. So what’s the plan for his spiritual welfare and growth?”

But do the pastor or parents really give any thought to this? Usually not.

It's something to keep in mind for my future children, but also something to keep in mind about myself right now, because there are times when I am guilty of thinking only of the "bottom line" without considering the things above.

--II--

I've thought about posting something concerning slippery slopes, but never really got around to it. It's always struck a cord of dissonance in my mind that in the sciences, induction = good, but as concerns applying observations to real life, reasoning from induction = slippery slope. Luckily, Mr Mike Flynn has a post about just this:

It's not the liberalism of old.  It's the faux-dispassionate attitude of the Wannsee Conference.  And to be a fanatic opposed to the very values of a liberal society" one now need only express outrage over infanticide.  It is bad taste to point out that one is engaged in a "proper academic discussion" of something utterly repugnant.  

The risk is not that state legislatures -- or even federal judges -- are about to implement the progressive thought embodied in the article tomorrow morning.  (One is less certain about Executive Orders.)  It is that such things are now regarded as "thinkable" by the policy elite.  A wedge has been hammered into the crack.  In the next generation, the ynglings will not even know that infanticide was once considered beyond the pale. 

This is his conclusion. He gets there from the starting point of "unthinkable" as opposed to "implausible." Meanwhile, Dr Jeff McLeod has a guest post on the IGNITUM TODAY site about a related topic (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to see how his post about education is related to slippery slopes).

--III--

When I was an undergraduate, I spent two years in the OSU student government, to little avail. By the second year, I took little of what they did seriously (save for the budgets, which actually had the power to more or less "tax" the students via mandatory incidental fees). Certain friends who joined me in the OSU senate well remember some of our antics fondly, and will also remember that most of the folks in the student government took themselves way too seriously, and their actually important duty as voices of the students in the few serious matters (e.g. the budget) not nearly seriously enough. I tell you all--and especially those of you who know something of the interior workings of the student government at OSU--it pales in comparison to the farce which is UT's student government. At OSU, we tried to get a (deserved) vote of no confidence in the ASOSU President, "DUI" Dan "The Drunk Driving Man" McCarthy; at UT, they file lawsuits against each other.

--Bonus--

For a bleak humor break, see Dr Jill Stanek's latest round of Sunday funnies, most of whcih are in some way about the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate, or about the war against women waged by said administration and its allies.

Seven Quick Takes (v 29): Spring Break Edition

--1--

This week is spring break at UT. I took a couple of days off, but due to the torrential downpour of the weekend (and Monday), I really didn't go anywhere. Darn weather, ruining our little camping trip. As for the days I went to work, they were the same as always, minus students--and also minus the coffee stand in RLM--other than that I spend most mornings in a daze thanks to daylight savings time. And since i get home later than most people, the result for now is that an hour of daylight is subtracted from my mornings, and an hour of darkness is added to my evenings. Thanks for nothing, time nazis.

--2--

I really didn't get to go anywhere or do anything fun--and I'm not into the whole "South by Southwest" music scene, so staying here isn't that great for me. Camping was cancelled, SXSW is and expensive set-up meant to draw rich Californians to Austin, and I don't have the kind of money of Miss Sandra Fluke* and/or her boyfriend so that I can go vacationing in Italy and Spain. And because everybody is so irregular around her, I don't even work as efficiently this week as I otherwise would have. I did, however, finish my grading from the Great Midterm Exam of Doom (and there were no pictures this time, as I predicted). Beyond that, it's been an interesting fiasco of correspondence with the theorist (who says that the experiment can't be done the way we had originally intended), and more correspondence with the engineering teams of several optics companies, who seem to be saying that they can't actually make the optics needed to do the experiment how the theorist suggests. Fun times are had by all.

*Yes, that is the same Sandra Fluke who complains that she can't afford $1000 per year (a bit inflated, no?) of birth control, and that therefore the rights of faithful Catholics should be trampled underfoot to buy it for her.

--3--

In happier news, our new baby nephew is to be baptized on Saturday (tomorrow). One more soul enters the Church, and by God's grace and the prayers of his parents and godparents, he'll joyfully and faithfully remain in that Church. As Saint Gregory of Nanzienzus--for whom our nephew is partially named--states, "Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit."

--4--

As for today, my basic goal is to design a new set of conservation of energy experiments for the physical sciences class. Suffice it to say that I'm not really satisfied with much of anything I have available. I used to do a cart son tracks experiment, but they're kind of sick of doing that at this point. Plus, our photogates don't work so well (after only about a year or so of wear and tear), so it would be nice to try something else a bit simpler.

--5--

In last week's quick takes, I spent a bit of time discussing Mitt Romney and the fiscal conservatives--particularly those who are fiscally conservative at the expense of being socially/culturally conservative. Nor am I anywhere near as enthusiastic about Rick Santorum as I would have been 8 years ago. He has most of the social conservatism without much of the economic conservatism. Ron Paul, for his part, is more liberterian than conservative, and though he makes many great points, he also has a few clunkers of his own--mostly, in being a bit too reactionary against things which are actually bad. I concluded by noting however, that this time around I will bite the bullet and vote for whichever candidate I think can beat Obama. Father Zuhlsdorf has posted a little emblem which explains why. I'm not a single issue voter per se, but I will eliminate from consideration any candidate (or party) which makes promotion of the culture of death a central plank of his (it's) platform. And in this latest round, outright war against faithful Catholics and our conscience rights and the freedom of our religion has become a second plank, what with the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate and the near-unanimous support of it by the Democrats in the Senate.

--6--

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some national lab is attempting this.

At Mass on Sunday, our priest explained the Ten Commandments to the parish's children. He asked them if they knew any examples of some of the commandments which might pertain especially to them. Concerning bearing false witness, one little boy--the grandson of a prominent family in our parish--suggested the example of science, specifically when a certain experiments are specifically not conducted for fear that they might go against consensus or might overturn a long-held theory. That's certainly an interesting example for a child of 8 to cite, but I've been asked something similar from time to time: "why hasn't anybody ever performed experiment X which might invalidate theory Y?" Scientific honesty and integrity may certainly be a motive in some cases, but it is rarely (if ever) the only motive. For one, experiments cost money, and therefore much scientific research is contingent on what the research sponsors and patrons desire. In the case of a corporation, this means that the research (including experiments) is conducted with some profitable product in mind. In the case of national labs, the goal is often (but not always) tied in some way to either energy or defense; and at the university, it's tied to whatever will likely yield publications and yet will also fill some niche in a broader scientific field. Thus, my own research group mostly does experiments pertaining to the visualization and characterization of plasma wakes, and the enhancement or suppression of some of the instabilities which develop in these waves; we develop plasma wakefield diagnostics and controls, which is what our grants cover. In the case of some types of experiment, the expectation is that no publication will be forthcoming--that is if the experiment X does what it is supposed to do, according to theory Y--or else it may or may not yield a result which is accepted for publication and which may be a lifelong battle for those who defend it, in the event that it "disproves" theory Y. Neither or these is exactly a "winning" formula for a person living in the publish or perish culture of academia, nor is it likely to yield a profit (industry) or a weapon (national labs). Thus, experiment X is not attempted.

--7--

I've been reading through the late Professor Warren H Carroll's The Building of Christendom, specifically the part about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (which takes place during the first third or half of the book). At one pint, he states that the fall of the Empire was inevitable from the latter half of the fourth century (if not sooner): there was nothing that any person could have done to reverse this fall. I sometime wonder when we'll hit that point in America (or if we haven't already). If so, what is a Christian to do? According to Dr Carroll, there were two options available then: to leave civilization and become a monk (thus, ironically, helping to save what could be saved from civilization), or to remain faithfully at one's post, as did Saint Augustine when he died in his late seventies, in Hippo as it was besieged by Vandals. God grant me the grace to choose my path wisely when the day comes. Until then,
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

Three Links Wednesday (vol. X)

My God, accept my heart this day/And make it always thine
That I from thee no more may stray/No more from thee decline....
Let ev'ry thought, and work and word/To thee be ever giv'n;
Then life shall be thy service, Lord,/And death the gate of heav'n. Amen.
(Matthew Bridges)

--I--

First up, three from National Review concerning President Obama's tyrannical HHS mandate, each from a slightly different angle. The inimitable Mr Mark Steyn hits it from the moral question of, so when do people in our society ever grow up? Meanwhile, Mr Charles Cooke considers the ridiculous "war on women" rhetoric employed by supporters of the tyrannical mandate, and asks just who this is supposed to help. Finally, Mr George Weigel notes that this tyrannical mandate not only goes against justice, it also goes against social justice:

"Who is being “strident” here? Who is coercing whom? Who has declared a culture war on whom? Only those lost in the intellectual fog of their own partisanship can fail to see that the bishops have in fact been that “leaven in society” that the brave Father Unnamed wants them to be — and they have done so precisely by leading a public reflection on the meaning of religious freedom in full, at a moment when that first of American liberties is being whittled down by the present administration to a private right of worship.

One of the most maddening aspects of this otherwise bracing debate has been the refusal of those who support either the HHS mandate or the bogus administration accommodation to debate honestly, in terms of the facts, and fairly, in terms of the rhetoric. This leads one to the suspicion that the administration’s defenders know that they have a losing case. The administration will likely continue its intransigence, for it cannot meet the bishops’ full concerns without enraging some of its (most well-heeled) allies."

All of which makes me a bit sad that I won't be able to attend the benefit gala in Austin at which Dr Weigel is speaking next month. The good news is that we may be winning in the public opinion battle; but public opinion is often tenuous at best.

Update: It turns out that Miss Sandra Fluke--the liberal darling who complained that she spent $1000/year on birth control--takes vacations to Spain and Italy with her rich boyfriend.  Tip of the cap to Fr Philip Neri Powell OP.

--II--

Speaking of unfair (and logic-bending) rhetoric, what is with the idiotic claim that ultrasound laws are akin to legalized rape? It's not like the woman withholds her consent, or for that matter that the abortionist inserts nothing else aside from the ultrasound wand into her. Since "reproductive health professionals" fail to do any actual autopsies, it is left to Dr Stacy Trasancos to do a more rhetorical autopsy:

How many times have you heard a pro-choice person argue that abortion is legal, and therefore, a right? Those same people rarely think beyond their words though, and fail to grasp that what they are really saying – if they maintain logical consistency – is that if abortion were illegal, the so-called right they’ve conjured up in their minds because legislators and judges granted it to them would suddenly cease to exist. And they’d have to accept that....

Wait. People are willing to tolerate abuses because they don’t see them? OK, then why not promote that women see their own children before agreeing to have them killed? Yes, that makes perfect sense in a logical world where words have consistent meaning to describe reality. Either we dehumanize or not. Either rights come from God or they don’t. Either consent is rape or it is not. Either free speech is censorship or it isn’t.

Actually, the attempts to define rape down have been ongoing within feminist circles. The result is that eventually, the term itself will lose not only its deserved visceral force, but it very meaning.

--III--

I'd like to echo my friend Mr Colin Gormley in saying that Mr Patrick Archibold has done a nice job of capturing this moment of history for Catholics (and others of good faith) in America (or indeed, in what remains of Christendom):

"I am tired of having to make the case, in polite terms lest I be accused of inflammatory or insulting language, that I shouldn’t have to subsidize your sin.  I feel like an idiot having to explain such basic things.  This is not what I signed up for....

I signed up for this.  I signed up for the ridicule.  I signed up for the persecution.  I signed up for the disappointment and I signed up for the relentless prayer in the face of all odds.  I signed up for defeat so that victory could be had.

I signed up to lose, so Christ could win.  I signed up for humiliation, so Christ could triumph.  I signed up for loss and defeat, so that Christ could have the victory.

When I agreed to be a Christian, I took up my cross.  This is what I signed up for."

Or, as Matthew Bridges put it, "Before the cross of him who died/ Behold I prostrate fall;/That ev'rysin be crucified,/ And Christ be all in all."
 

--Bonus--

Vox Christi looks to be a promising publication put together by future priests.Check 'em out.

Seven Quick Takes (v 28): Friends and Politics etc

--1--

I think the high point of this week was the unexpected pleasure of a surprise visit from Mr Nikklas Warren, a friend of mine from OSU. He was in town for a business conference, but we were able to get together for a few hours Wednesday night.  Always a pleasure to catch up with old friend I've not seen for (literally) years! I also met a few of his other friends from around Austin (he has several who live in these parts), who were for the most part good company and provided some interesting conversation.

--2--

Speaking of which, I met the first person I think I've met during this election cycle who is an enthusiastic supporter of Mitt Romney. They do exist! I should note what I mean by this, since I have other friends who support Mitt Romney for president, or who plan to vote for him come November, or who think that of the available candidates in the primary, he is the best. This is the first person I've spoken to who was literally thrilled for Romney, who balks at those of us who are a bit less thrilled for Romney v Obama; he seems to view Romney as his ideal candidate, not just a compromise or "the best of the (weak field of) choices available" or even a good but not great candidate. So apparently, enthusiastic Romney supporters do exist.

--3--

I should mention by way of passing this Romney supporter's brief rant, because it rather helps illustrate why I am not an enthusiastic Romney supporter*. He began by noting that every vote in the primaries for someone other than Romney is ultimately a vote for Obama--logic which might hold in the actual November elections, but which doesn't really hold for a primary which Romney is essentially destined to win--and then moved on to excoriate the so-called "single issue voters." He referred to them as "people who have no business really voting" and "people who were irrelevant until after 1973." In other words, he railed again social conservatives in general, and people who recognize the life issues as foundational (as Romney does not) in particular. "Only the economic issues really matter, no politician is going to do anything major for social issues." In other words, his single issue is economics. I suppose that the "single-issue" voters (namely, social conservatives who care immensely about a host of issues ranging from abortion to euthanasia to defending religious liberties to sexual education/indoctrination to defending marriage) have been told to stay home this primary season; the thing is, when you're told to stay home during the primaries, you tend to look at any invitation to turn out en masse for the general election as somewhat disingenuous.

*Which is not to say that I think he's a terrible candidate or that I won't vote for him. The prospect of a second term of President Barack Obama--along with his continued ability to wage his kulturkampf and perhaps even stepping up his war against the Church--is all the convincing I need to vote for whoever the Republicans nominate, provided that he doesn't continue or support said kulturcampf.

--4--

This is not to say that only the social issues matter to me; but I also consider many of the economic problems we face to be moral (though not necessarily ethical) issues of sorts. Granted, as moral issues they are generally far less important than most of the social/cultural issues: but that is just the point. We might elect a president (and a congress) who for a time "fixes" the budget--thus presenting the technical side of the solution to this problem (and economics is in part a technical problem). This we do need to do. However, the problem is also moral in the sense that we've created entire dependent classes of persons, and others who are not so much dependent as completely selfish. As an example of the former, consider the that the average consumer debt exceeds $10,000 and that (as a partial result of this) many people have not saved anything near an adequate amount of money for their retirements, and will hence be reliant on Social Security (etc) to see them through from retirement 'til death. As an example of the second, we can see on the one hand those people who would trample religious liberties underfoot, not so that they will have access to contraception (they already do) but rather so that they can force somebody else to pay for it (and that is picking from the supporters of this tyrannical HHS mandate who have relatively purer motives).

--5--

The point here is that a candidate (or party) who overlooks the glaring moral issues is probably not going to ultimately have that great of a (long-term) track record with the smaller moral issues. Thus, for example, we saw that the Republican-controlled congresses of the mid-late 90's actually managed to balance the budget, for a time. However, that balancing act came to an end the first time that a Republican took the Whitehouse--perhaps in no small part because, since this was not in the least seen as a moral issue, no morals were compromised in trying to meet the financial demands of President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" while also taking in fewer revenues.

--6--

On to other things, this week was exam week for physical science. I suspect that there will be few pictures, jokes, and laugh-worthy moments and lots of tedium as far as grading goes. I've noticed an unfortunate trend of bad attitudes from the students I've had for the last few years, both on tests and towards homework (or really, any work not they're asked to do outside of class, and some work they're asked to do in class). Let's just say that it gives me a bit of anecdotal evidence to conclude that Mr Rick Santorum* was right when he said that college is not for everyone, though to be fair my sampling is biased towards communications and business majors (whose majors fit better with trade schools than with the mission of a university).


*And no, this whole post is not really meant to be a long and circuitous endorsement of Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney.

--7--

And now for something a bit more entertaining to kick of the weekend: "Five Leadership Mistakes of the Galactic Empire." Oh, and also this epic failure of leadership (to say nothing of communication):

Happy Friday, and happy spring break.


-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

Nicene Guys: RCIA Question Box on Stem Cell Research

What is the Church's stance of stem cell research?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that "Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God" (CCC 2319). In that same Catechism we read that

"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life" (CCC 2270).

Therefore, the Church's teaching concerning the morality of any kind of research is based first and foremost on whether that research grants respect for the sanctity of human life and for the dignity of the human person. Thus, the first question to ask is whether the research in question respects or rejects the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. If the research does respect human life and dignity, then it is most likely morally good; if it rejects human dignity and the sanctity of human life, then it is most certainly morally evil.

Read the rest on the Nicene Guys site.

Three Links Wednesday (vol. IX)

The Curt Jester commenting on the liberal piety of "safe sex": "I guess they don’t believe their own propaganda regarding condoms.  After all they are much cheaper than birth control pills and no side effects other than sin...Maybe some of the demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street movement who threw condoms on Catholic schoolgirls could throw some Ms. Fluke’s way."

--I--

First, a set of three links covering (variously) some of the common misunderstandings, deceptions, and outright lies surrounding the tyrannical HHS mandate. From Mrs Elizabeth Scalia's post:

"Medical office “parks” had signs advertising available space. The gas prices were the highest we have seen in our lifetimes. My husband remarked that those businesses having managed to stay open with gas at $3.50 a gallon might yet see their doors close as already-struggling customers have to re-budget and re=-prioritize their spending, and everyone needs $4.50 a gallon gas to get to work or — as is often the case, to just go look for work.
Very depressing. And I don’t think we’re anywhere near out of the woods yet.
But by all means, let’s keep pretending that there is a “contraception crisis” looming before us — not the actual “constitutional crisis”.
Let’s keep making believe that entities besides Democrats, Democrat operatives and the Mainstream Media are talking about banning contraception."

--II--

Next up, Mr Mark Stricherz has a follow-up to his post about the Baltimore Catechism: (the original was in last weeks' Three Links, and also occasioned this post). He writes,

In theory, producing a new Baltimore Catechism could combine the best of both worlds. It would feature the best of the pre-conciliar era of instruction (clarity and completeness). Yet it would not posses the worst of the post-conciliar (vagueness and emotivism) and pre-conciliar (authoritarianism and judgmentalism) eras. Now that would help produce an enlightened age for the mass of Catholics if not the elites.

Agreed. The Baltimore Catechism is clear, concise, and simple, on the one hand; and yet it is reasonably tactful, and does not have much of a ring of clericalism to it. It is useful for the Catholic intellectual who tends to lose sight of the forest through all the trees; and it is useful for the "blue-collar" Catholic, who often just wants to look at the forest without having to distinguish between each kind of tree.

--III--

In the spirit of my post on IGNITUM TODAY, my last (non-bonus) link goes to a discussion of Catholics, Atheists, and science written by Dr Jeff McLeod and hosted by Dr Stacy Trasancos:

The Catholic has proof that the universe is orderly, or that the number 3 is a real entity by revelation. God created the universe. He created all things with weight and measure. Statements like these are givens, and will not be implicated by a falsification.

Consequently, if an experiment were performed, and the experiment failed to attain, the atheist could logically question whether it might be false that the universe is orderly. The Catholic trusts the metaphysical axioms and therefore sees the result of an experiment differently.

One practical consequence: according to Fr. Stanley Jaki, the scientific revolution could only occur logically in a Christian context precisely because Christians asserted as axiomatic that Christ is the logos, the creative reason, that holds the universe together as a coherent, rational thing. Thus, Christians had the epistemological confidence to continue in the face of failure, whereas the Humean and Cartesian doubters would have spent their lifetimes wringing their hands, “Oooh but how do we really know that there are universal laws at all? Couldn’t it just be coincidence?” Blah.

Of course, "operational" (laboratory and even theoretical) science can be atheist, agnostic, Catholic, etc. (as Dr McLeod and Mr Rick DeLano note in the comments section), so long as the science "remains metaphysically Catholic." Perhaps this is why "metaphysics" is treated as a bad word by so many in the scientific community.

--Bonus--

To think I used to live here. The place is starting to finally get the bad reviews it deserves. Perhaps eventually these will look like bad reviews for "Snooki's" book, or like the opposite of the good reviews for the Three Wolf Moon shirts. One can only hope.

IT: Catholic Education Symposium--Catholics and Science

In the spirit of the Catholic education symposium, I had wanted to address the specific question of the sciences in the context of Catholic education. I had a grand and sweeping vision of how I would address this topic, for it is broad, deep, and timely. However, in the spirit of being me and not recalling time-tables (I forgot that this was "my" week to write something), I never went beyond a simple outline of this vision, and an incomplete one at that, so that I can write neither with the depth nor the breadth which I had hoped for. This is not the greatest essay on Catholic Science ever composed: no, I'm sorry to say that it is only a tribute.

----

Two months ago when the topic of a symposium on Catholic education was first mentioned, I had a brief com-box discussion with my colleague Miss Allie Terrell (her submission to this symposium can be read here). What does (or should) a science course look like at a Catholic University? Or for that matter, what does or should it look like in any Catholic educational context, whether university or high-school or homeschool? I cannot, of course, offer a full answer to this question in just one blog post, but as somebody who is Catholic, a scientist, and a teacher of science, the question does cross my mind. Suffice it to say that I cannot offer here a practical programme to implement what I believe to be a Catholic education in science, but that I can offer a theoretical reflection—a vision, if you will—of what that education may be like.

It is tempting to consider one or another method of teaching science: discovery method and guided inquiry, or lectures and labs, or great books and great experiments? But this is not ultimately the heart of the issue. These are techniques for learning the science (and its history and development), all of which are important, but none of which really answers the question posed. Granted, it is important to understand the history and development of science—very little of which is even remotely touched upon at any level of our modern educations—but the history and development of science is no more actually science than is the history and development (or regression) of philosophy actually philosophy. On the other hand, science is certainly more than just being able to work a few equations or to develop some new and exciting technology, which is quite often how it is treated in the secular university (with a good many Catholic universities following suite).

Read the rest on the IGNITUM TODAY site.

Seven Quick Takes (v 27): Hastily Written Version

--1--

Our parish pro-life council has urged us all to find some sacrifice to make--some thing to give up, or alternatively some thing to do--during Fridays of Lent (and perhaps beyond) in response to the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate (and its recent party-line confirmation in the Senate).

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio; contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperat illi Deus; supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae coelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen

--2--

I've been reading G.K. Chesterton's Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State. Chesterton was writing during the time of Sanger, of the rise of Hitler and Stalin, and when the ideas of Malthus were popular in "intellectual" circles. It is perhaps not surprising that it is relevant as ever today.

--3--

There is rumor that many Catholics institutions will go the way of the Boston Area Catholic Charities under the HHS mandate: effectively shut down by the government after refusing an unconscionable and, to be blunt, pointless mandate. Of course, for now they can just take a $400 per employee per year hit, which will have the same effect. Perhaps they could consider telling their employees that the money for fines is being deducted from said employees' paycheck (and added to student tuition, in the case of the universities). This would, unfortunately, be unfair to those employees who are faithful to the Church's teachings: but somehow, I suspect it is these would mind this the least. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than closing down, especially if the employees in question react by protesting the mandate (as well they should).

--4--

Next week brings the midterm for my physical science students. It will be a lab practical, as will be the final. I tested out the questions today, and both actually do work reasonably well and each can certainly be done in the time allotted. Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to write an exam which tests some of the "intangible" concepts which they will hopefully learn in the class. One such intangible is that it is a lot harder than it looks to tease a conclusion out of an experiment: faulty equipment, systematic and random error, etc. Notice that I said "harder than it looks": which is a world away from saying "impossible."

--5--

Professor Budzisewski, among other, has mentioned the idea of a "seared" conscience. This is the conscience a person who does something which is wrong, knows that it is wrong, and lies to himself (and anybody else who will listen) until he is convinced that there is nothing wrong with his actions, or (worse still) that his actions are actually good. I've witnessed something like this in the response from some people concerning my conscientious objections to the Obama administration's tyrannical HHS mandate. They've more-or-less asked me who I am to judge them and condemn them. To clarify: whether or not you will be condemned for your sins, whatever they may be, is ultimately between you and God. It is ultimately up to you to repent or remain obstinate, and up to God to balance the demands of mercy and of justice; that is Who will have the final say in whether you will go to heaven or to hell. However, as a baptized and practicing Catholic, it is one of my duties to be a prophet. That does not mean that I am to tell the future, since that is not what a prophet does. Rather, a prophet is a moral teacher, a sort of watchman, who duties include calling a sin a sin and warning sinners to repent. I don't relish that duty; I don't even always fulfill it; it is a hard duty, and made all the more difficult by knowing that I am also a sinner. But when I call contraception a grave evil, I am doing no more than discharging my duty to speak the truth both in season and out.

--6--

My friend Mr Colin Gormley has been exploring the concept of persecution as it applies to Christians in general and Catholic in particular, especially in the context of the tyrannical HHS mandate, and in the context of the fact that the Church herself will always ultimately prevail. The common objection seems to be "how can you be persecuted if you'll be victorious" or (alternatively) "if the Church is so powerful that it will always prevail, how could it possibly be persecuted?" Well, the Church was clearly persecuted for the first few centuries of her existence, first by the Jews and then by the Romans. She is still persecuted in clear and obvious ways around the world today--witness the large number of Catholic martyrs (pun not intended) around the world today, to say nothing of other Christian communions, denominations, or sects. She survived Rome, she'll survive this. But individual believers will suffer (and may not survive, either physically or spiritually) in any given persecution. As for the Church's "power," it is not physical nor temporal power, and even during periods when popes, bishops, abbots, etc held temporal power, rarely did they hold more such power than the nobility, either collectively or individually. Rather, they hold spiritual power and moral authority. The situation is little different today: numerically Christians are a majority, though orthodox Christians of all sorts are a minority. Witness, for example, the percentage of Catholics who are actually obedient to Church teaching on contraception: somewhat more than the 2% number bandied about by the media, but also certainly well short of a majority even among Catholics. Granted, this is a population of some millions of people: but the 20th century alone has provided us with ample examples of persecutions (and even outright massacres) of comparably large groups of people by their governments.

--7--

Tomorrow my wife and i will be attending our first ever baptism class in preparation for being Godparents to our nephew. The class is three hours long, but that's ultimately short given the responsibility this will entail.


-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

TMM: The Church in America and Intellectual Catholics

As I noted/linked yesterday, Mr Mark Stricherz has a short post on the value of the Baltimore Catechism for the blue collar Catholic.

the Baltimore Catechism was not elaborate, overly complex, or opaque. It didn’t require an advanced degree to read and understand. As a result, Catholicism was accessible to ordinary church-goers, including the working classes. It was the way of our people....By accident or design, the American Church has gravitated toward the college educated. It is pulling in great intellectuals and theologians, but losing the non-intellectuals among us. Revising the Baltimore Catechism would help win them back.

There is, of course, nothing wrong (and a lot right) with the Church's appealing to the more intellectual crowd. We who are intellectuals are also sinners, an in particular are in danger of the sins of pride. On the other hand, we are tasked with being leaders in the Church, yes in holiness (though this ultimately is or should be the province of all), but also in the use of our intellectual virtues (understanding, knowledge, wisdom, and prudence) and in the governance of our wills by our intellects. Of at least equal importance is the need for good "intellectual" leaders in the exposition of Church doctrine, and of leaders who will not so much attempt to shape Church doctrine (that is not our job) but rather to find both creative and mundane ways of applying it to everyday life.

However, these appeals to "intellectual" Catholics shouldn't be done at the exclusion of the "blue-collar" Catholics. The "Blue-Collar" crowd is and always will be the greater portion of humanity, and when they are at their best they can teach us intellectuals a thing or two about simplicity/poverty of spirit, purity of heart, and in general holiness. They are, in short, "the virtuous yeomanry" of the Church, as Mr Stricherz puts it. Or, to use an analogy to the body of Christ, at their best the intellectuals may be the eyes and occasionally the ears of the Church, whereas the "blue collar Catholics" are her hands and feet.

With all that said, while the bulk of conversions these days are of intellectuals into the Faith and the rest away from it, I'm not sure that I agree that the American Church has "gravitated toward the college-educated," but rather that this "gravitation" is a general phenomenon in the West. On the other hand, this gravitation in America at the least doesn't seem to me to be complete, since a great many people who comes into the Church (or who at the very least attend Mass regularly) have complained time and again of the poor choice of music in the liturgy and even the trite or oversimplified homilies once they've actually started into the "grind" of becoming practicing Catholics.

This dumbing down (to be blunt) of Catholicism may be meant as an appeal to the "blue collar" Catholics, albeit at the expense of the more intellectual Catholics who "read the full Catechism or books or listen to the Pope, priests and bishops, and friends and family members... and popular Catholic thinkers like Father Barron" or for that matter who spend time in parish Bible studies and Catholicism 101 (or other catechetical) classes. It is, in short, an attempt to "meet people where they are" on the part of the priests, bishops, and pastoral staffs of most parishes. Unfortunately, it is often quite recognizable as "dumbing down" and thus comes across as patronizing, an insult to the intellects of the men who humbly and rightly recognize that they are not intellectuals. And it has, I would contend, contributed to the general drifting away of many once-stout Catholics who believe (and not altogether wrongly) that they are being talked down to by the "educated intellectuals" to whom they are left to turn for advice.

The Baltimore Catechism will not fix all of this alone. But it will go a long way towards helping, because rather than "dumbing down" our Faith, it explains the doctrines of that Faith in clear and simple terms. Yes, it is written and in part intended for children and young adolescents who are preparing for their first confession/Communion (BC No. 1), the intermediate years between receiving first Communion and Confirmation (BC No. 2), and Confirmation (BC No. 3). But it manages to explain the doctrines of our faith clearly and concisely, so that it is not a resource only for children, but also for adults who just want to simple straight answer. And incidentally, this group of people for whom the Baltimore Catechism is useful can count not only children and "blue collar" Catholics, but even to some extent the intellectuals, since at times we lose the forest through the trees of details and distinctions.