The Magical Child

David Cameron with his son Ivan

A complete editorial from today's Tablet: The True Measure of a Life

True measure of a life

At precisely the moment on Ash Wednesday when the House of Commons was due to turn into the weekly bear pit of Prime Minister's Questions, proceedings were adjourned for half an hour and the usual raucous exchanges were postponed. It was as if parliamentarians of all persuasions sensed that in the circumstances, the normal traffic of party politics was too frantic and too trivial to contend with. For one of the key participants, Tory leader David Cameron, was absent due to a personal bereavement of the most poignant and tragic kind. Earlier that morning his six-year-old son Ivan had died in hospital. Ivan was born with severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy, and had never been far from hospital throughout his short life. Nothing softened his father's image more than his devoted care for his son through thick and thin. He often expressed a heartfelt solidarity with thousands of ordinary parents struggling with similar challenges. Indeed, Ivan may be credited with changing the way the Conservative Party viewed the National Health Service itself, no mean achievement for one so meek and little. The proposal to abandon Prime Minister's Questions came from Gordon Brown, who paid a tribute in the House that was manifestly from the heart. He too had lost a child, in his case soon after birth. Perhaps only those who have had such an experience can come close to understanding it.

The meaning of the life of a six-year-old infant with cerebral palsy cannot be measured by intelligence tests or physical prowess. His measure is the deep love he received from those around him, stirred all the more by his helpless vulnerability, and the love he gave back. Mr Cameron called him his "magical child". There is something mysterious about such children, for they have an ability to engage with others without the developed faculties of speech and hearing. Instinctively at such times people reach for poetic - indeed for religious - language to express what they feel. How else to acknowledge the infinite value of the many children who will never see adulthood but who are cared for in loving homes despite the sometimes gruelling duties of nursing them, except by reference to the God who formed them in his image?

It also takes religious language to articulate the close association of love with suffering, so that the greater the love, the greater the pain at eventual loss. But these are not reasons to refuse to love. Undoubtedly, had sympathetic doctors been asked, they would have signed the necessary consent forms for termination of pregnancy, ending Ivan's life in the womb as the lives of countless others have been. At such moments society needs to look at itself very candidly in the mirror and ask what it thinks it is doing.

The first day of Lent is one of the darkest of the liturgical calendar, surpassed only by Good Friday. But in the northern hemisphere at least, it comes when the spring days are lengthening, when Nature revives and summer lies ahead. For those who suffer bereavement it is always a kind of Lent, signifying loss, but it can also signify hope, of winter over and Christ's passion endured and overcome. Blessed are they who mourn, he said, for they will be comforted. And the meek will inherit the earth.

A Heavy Dose of Ashes From Back in the Day

The Flagellants Scene from Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal



The Catholic Encylopedia on the Flagellants.

The Black Death (1347-1351) took away between one third and one half of the population of Europe. That same century had seen the papal schism, a brutal famine, and the Hundred Years War (which represented the first nation state war in European history).

The clergy was devastated by the plague, and the following generations were poorly educated in contrast to the golden age of theology in the 1200's. Death seemed to be at everyone's elbow. The mood was morbid and apocalyptic. There was much discussion of the putrefecation of the body, and being eaten by worms, and what the resurrection of the body was going to be like. Look up the "The Three Living and the Three Dead", the Danse Macabre, and Transi Tombs to catch the tenor of the times.



I was a pauper born, then to Primate raised
Now I am cut down and ready to be food for worms
Behold my grave.
Whoever you may be who passes by,
I ask you to remember
You will be like me after you die
All horrible, dust, worms, vile flesh"

- Tomb of Henry Chichele, d. 1443

In the play "Everyman", which symbolizes any man about to die, Everyman is abandoned by his friends (Fellowship), his family (Kindred and Cousin), and his material possesions (Goods). His only steadfast companion unto the grave is his charitable works (Good Deeds) which he has been neglecting. A key emphasis in the piety of the times was laid upon Confession and the necessity to do penance, which sets Everyman on the path to salvation.

Postscript: An interesting thing happened this morning. When they distributed the ashes at Mass they said, "Remember, man, that thou art dust, and to dust thou shall return" I hadn't heard that in a long, long time. For years it had been "Repent and believe in the Gospel."

See more on that very topic from this J. Peter Nixon post on dotCommonweal.

While the Ash Wednesday injunction to “repent and believe in the Gospel” is more biblical, I must confess that I miss the older “Remember thou are dust and unto dust thou shalt return.” The shock of being confronted with the certainty of our death is a good way to begin Lent. Sic transit gloria mundi.

The Endurance of the Reagan Legacy

Despite the fix we're in...



I didn't see it, but I heard today from one of the guys at work that one of the CNBC anchors went off on a rant last night about how sick and tired he was of Wall Street guys taking the hit in the press and in the court of public opinion for the financial crisis, and wanted to know why the blame wasn't being placed squarely on folks who got in over their heads with mortgages for houses they couldn't afford. Cheers over this rant apparently rang out all across the studio and the trading floor.

Another example of guys with everything placing all the ills of the country on people who have nothing.

His rant conveniently ignored the fact that for the most part, local banks are doing just fine, thanks. They knew how to manage their liquidity. It was the Wall Street banks and investment houses that melted down.

Which all goes to show how much this country really changed under Dutch. Even though his policies and ideas have been completely discredited, people still cling doggedly to them (hence, all the hysteria over socialism in the last election cycle, with the ironic part being that due to the excessive greed on Wall Street, we are now closer to socialism than ever before). This extends to the widely held opinion that Reagan was a no-nonsense tough guy who singlehandedly brought an end to the Cold War and made terrorists everywhere shake in their shoes. This is the same Reagan, mind you, who horrified his aides when he nearly gave away the whole nuclear store in his meeting with Soviet Premier Gorbachev, who responded to the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut by invading Grenada and pulling out of Lebanon, and who traded arms with the Iranians for hostages and later lied about it.



In this Matt Miller interview, listen to him talk about his new book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.

In his new book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, Miller writes that while many of our current notions of economic and social well-being made sense when they first gained traction 50 years ago, they don't hold much water today... "Unless we explode the dead ideas I'm talking about in the book, we won't find our way back to a durable prosperity," warns Miller...

Three facts are now poised to shape our economic life for a generation. First, thanks to global competition and rapid technological change, America's economy is about to face its most severe test in nearly a century. Second, our political and business leaders are doing next to nothing to prepare us to cope with what lies ahead. And third, the reason for this inaction is that our entire economic and political culture remains in thrall to a set of "Dead Ideas" about how a modern economy should work. This book is about the threat that individuals, companies, and the country face from the things we think we know, and about the new (and surprising) ways of thinking destined to replace these Dead Ideas so that America will continue to prosper.

The next decade will bring a collision of forces that threaten to disrupt U.S. society, sink the middle class, and call into question the political and business arrangements on which our prosperity and stability have rested for decades. These perils have little to do with the housing-related financial crisis that gripped America in the fall of 2008; in fact, the need to steer our way through this near-term credit crunch now masks longer-term economic challenges that are far more consequential. The stakes couldn't be higher: if America doesn't decisively manage these tides of change, we'll face a backlash against our economic model—which, for all its flaws, has produced more betterment for more people than any other system in human history. If this backlash proves contagious, and other advanced nations lose faith in capitalism's ability to improve the lives of ordinary people, the rich world's efforts to protect its citizens from economic change will doom the developing world to dollar-a-day poverty.

The good news is that there are ways to avert this dark scenario and to flourish. The trouble is we're not doing what we need to because of the Tyranny of Dead Ideas. By this I mean the tacit assumptions and ingrained instincts broadly shared by business executives, professionals, policy makers, media observers, and other opinion leaders regarding the way a wealthy, advanced economy like the United States should work...

Consider:

CEOs routinely bemoan skyrocketing health care costs, saying they give foreign companies a competitive edge because governments abroad pick up these bills. Yet in the next breath most executives insist that America's government should not play a bigger role in bearing this burden. Who else do they think is available?

Politicians and business leaders say we should cut taxes for most (some would say all) Americans to boost the economy. Yet America already has $40 trillion in unfunded promises shortly coming due in Social Security, Medicare, and other programs serving senior citizens — and that's before we toss in the costs of rescuing America's banking system, not to mention assorted sensible blueprints to insure the uninsured, develop clean energy, rebuild roads and bridges, extend preschool, and more. Has anyone noticed that these numbers don't come close to adding up?

Everyone agrees that education is the key to improving future living standards in a fiercely competitive global economy, and that we need to lift all children, not just the most talented, to higher standards of learning and achievement. Yet in the 2008 presidential campaign, not a single major-party candidate questioned our shockingly inequitable system of school finance, which dooms schools in poor neighborhoods in ways no other advanced nation tolerates. How are 10 million poor American children supposed to compete?

Top economists in both political parties perennially assure us that free trade is "good for the country," because the benefits to some Americans outweigh the losses suffered by others due to foreign competition. But wait: Who put economists in charge of weighing the interests of one set of Americans against another?

The answers to these questions will depend on how quickly we escape the pernicious influence of...

Six Dead Ideas:

The Kids Will Earn More Than We Do. Broadly rising incomes have been considered an American birthright. This pattern of generational advance is now at risk for as much as half the population.

Free Trade Is "Good" (No Matter How Many People Get Hurt). Though millions of people may be hurt by foreign competition, we're told, the overall gains from free trade so outweigh any downside that it is folly to question its ultimate advantages.

Your Company Should Take Care of You. Business (not government) must fund and manage much of our health and pension benefits, this idea holds, or else we risk becoming socialist.

Taxes Hurt the Economy (and They're Always Too High). The truth is that taxes are going up no matter who is in power in the next decade, and the economy will be fine. We won't turn into France or Sweden.

Schools Are a Local Matter. Americans need more skills to maintain our living standards as developing economies rise up to compete with us. America also spends more on schools than nearly every other wealthy nation — with worse results. Yet our unique model of "local control" and funding of schools remains sacrosanct.

Money Follows Merit. The most cherished illusion of today's educated class is that market capitalism is a meritocracy — that is, a system in which people basically end up, in economic terms, where they deserve to.

Getting to the effects of Reagan's ideas specifically, see Leon Wieseltier's Washington Diarist: Love Me I'm a Liberal:

It has been many decades since liberalism could fall back upon the power of platitudes; the platitudinous authority now belongs to the other side... The repudiation of George W. Bush is not in itself a renovation of liberalism, and neither is the apotheosis of Barack Obama. The public has not yet broken the grip of the conservative discourse that has dominated America for a generation.

Consider the insane headline on Newsweek's cover, "We Are All Socialists Now": an exclamation of its inner Hannity, as if the president is preparing to abolish private property or expropriate the means of production. All that is happening, comrades, is that our democratically constituted central government is acting to protect the whole of our economy by taking over, for a period, a part of our economy. But second natures, which are made more by culture than by thought, are not easily extinguished. Sean Wilentz was shrewd to contain the Clinton years in his recent study of "the age of Reagan," because Bill Clinton's inglorious role in the history of liberalism was to teach it to sleep with its enemy... On the day that Clinton pragmatically announced that "the era of big government is over," liberalism forgot itself.

Pragmatism has a dark side. The allure of pragmatism was lost on the conservatives, of course. They sought power so that they could act on what they believed. And when they got their chance, they ran the republic down in almost all its aspects. We must not draw the wrong conclusion from the rubble. The problem was what they believed, not that they believed.

Soon to be SAINTS Jeanne Jugan and Damien de Veuster

These are both good calls, and long overdue.


In November of 2007, I posted about the great work being done by the Little Sisters of the Poor, and a little bit about their foundress, Blessed Jeanne Jugan. At an upcoming consistory, a date will finally be set for her canonization. Rocco Palmo has the details on Whispers in the Loggia.

Lest anyone was unaware, the Little Sisters of the Poor do so much for so many that, whatever they ask of you, you just drop everything and do it.

He's sure got that right! From the link about Jeanne Jugan above:

The French Revolution had broken out three years before the birth of a baby girl whose name is known today all over the world.

Jeanne Jugan was born on October 25, 1792 in Cancale (Ille-et-Vilaine), a fishing port on the north coast of Brittany, France. Her father was absent at the time, for he had sailed six months earlier for the fishing season in Newfoundland...

Less than four years later, Jeanne's father was lost at sea, like so many other sailors! At home, it was hard to make both ends meet. Jeanne, her brother and two sisters learned from their mother how to live poverty honestly and courageously, with faith and love for God...

She left Cancale for the nearby town of Saint Servan. A nurse at Le Rosais Hospital, a visiting nurse, then a servant, she desired only to serve God and others, especially the poor...

One winter's evening, Jeanne opened her home and her heart to an elderly, half paralyzed blind woman who had suddenly found herself all alone. Jeanne gave up her bed for her.

This act committed her forever. Soon another old woman followed, then a third. In 1843, there were forty of them around Jeanne and her three young companions, who had chosen her as the Superior of their small association which was slowly taking the form of a religious community...

However it was not long before Jeanne was deprived of this responsibility. In the face of this injustice, she responded only with silence, gentleness and abandonment. Through her faith and love, she discovered in this decision God's plan for herself and for her religious family...

As the years passed by, Jeanne Jugan was buried more deeply in obscurity. The history of the beginning of her work was distorted. When she died on August 29, 1879, in La Tour St. Joseph, few Little Sisters knew that she was the foundress.

However, her influence on the younger Little Sisters, whose life she had shared for twenty-seven years, was decisive. During this long period, she transmitted to them the original charism and the spirit of the origins. Little by little the situation became clear.

In 1902, the truth became evident: Jeanne Jugan, Sister Mary of the Cross, who died in oblivion a quarter of a century earlier, was not the third Little Sister, as it was believed, but the first, the foundress.

Rocco also points out that at the same consistory Damien de Veuster (Father Damien the Leper of Molokai, who I posted about at length here) is also expected to have a date set for his canonization.

Bassist Victor Wooden's Amazing Grace

I know next to nothing about Victor Wooden, but I thought this was some pretty nice bass picking and slapping. I'm intrigued to hear more from him.

Crucifixes and Icons at Boston College. What Nerve.

Boston College President, Father William Leahy SJ, has decided to install crucifixes and/or icons in each of BC's classrooms as part of an attempt to reconnect BC to its Catholic mission.

Generally speaking, the news has gone over well, but not with everyone.

A smattering of reactions from here and there.

Student reaction has been generally supportive, but among faculty, there is division over the appropriateness of the step. A meeting last month of arts and sciences department chairs turned into a heated argument over the classroom icons; a handful of faculty have written to the administration to protest, and some unsuccessfully circulated a petition asking to have crucifixes removed.

"I believe that the display of religious signs and symbols, such as the crucifix, in the classroom is contrary to the letter and spirt of open intellectual discourse that makes education worthwhile and distinguishes first-rate universities from mediocre and provincial ones," Maxim D. Shrayer, chairman of the department of Slavic and Eastern languages and literatures, said in an interview.

“There is no choice if you don’t think it’s appropriate. You can’t turn it around,” said biology professor Dan Kirschner, faculty adviser for BC’s chapter of Hillel, a Jewish student group. “I think it is being insensitive to the people of other faith traditions here.”

Amir Hoveyda, head of BC’s chemistry department, blasted the school in an e-mail to the Herald for “not being interested in an exchange with its faculty members.”

In an interview with the college newspaper, The Observer, which broke the story, Hoveyda described the crucifixes as “offensive” and the university’s actions as “anti-intellectual.”

“I can hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution,” he is quoted as saying. “The insult is particularly scathing, since such symbols were installed without discussion . . . in a disturbingly surreptitious manner.”

Sophomore Alex LoVerde, 20, believes a crucifix “pushes the Catholic religion” and does not belong in a classroom. “I think the Jesuit tradition is more of openness and tolerance,” LoVerde said. “I think that an overt display of crucifixes is not what the Jesuits would have had in mind.”

Oh, give me a break! With moonbats like this around, no wonder we have SSPX wingnuts around... Is there anyone sane out there?

Says Father John Paris SJ:

"Christian iconography and symbols permeate this place and always have," said the Rev. John Paris, a Jesuit priest who teaches bioethics at BC. Paris said he finds "offensive" the notion that a crucifix impedes the ability of students or faculty to think critically in a classroom and called the criticism "the narrow and bizarre musings of a few disgruntled folks."

"This is a small problem for those with small minds," Paris added. "This is not a serious controversy.


Watch the video from this link.

Paula Fredriksen Lectures: "Sin: The Early History of an Idea”

The Church Triumphant Over Synagogue, Strasbourg Cathedral (c. 1230)

As the controversy continues to roil over the Vatican-SSPX train wreck, a public relations & communications fiasco if you want to put the most benign and best possible face on it **, we've been humiliated (once again) by the fact that the whole world has been exposed to a persistent and malignant tumor that remains on the fringes of Catholicism - Jew hatred.

** Side note: Here's me trying to be as charitable as I can in explaining the whole thing. Benedict has a grand vision of uniting Catholicism, The Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the Traditional Anglican Communion into one grand Church characterized by "Tradition" that will revitalize Christendom in Europe. The Russian Orthodox say to him, "Get your own house in order with your own schisms first." As for the SSPX schism, he doesn't want these bishops to age and consecrate a whole new generation of bishops, which will make the breach permanent. It would be better to absorb the group and try to control what is being said from out of it than to have a permanent parallel church as a rival.

Everyone recalls that when Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came out a few years ago, there was a nasty spat beforehand between Gibson and a combined group of Christian and Jewish scholars operating under the auspices of the USCCB's Advisory Committee on Catholic-Jewish Relations and the ADL. They had offered to evaluate the script's biblical accuracy in conformity with the Catholic Bishops' Guidelines on Passion Plays. Their ensuing advice didn't go down too well with Gibson.

As I related in the post In Vino Veritas (after Gibson was arrested for DUI and went off on an anti-semtitic rant), BU Professor Paula Fredriksen came out of the Passion flap feeling very much burned, chastened, and stunned by the reaction she'd received for her efforts:

Finally, Gibson and his minions, I must note with gratitude, have certainly educated me. The hateful emails that I and my colleagues have received, the websites that this movie has spawned, and the angry displays of muscular piety prompted by this phase in the American culture wars have left me humbled and remorseful. With what conviction can I remain amazed by the literalism, the anger, and the defining power of hate in Islamic fundamentalism? With much less excuse, we have plenty of our own home-grown varieties right here.

I can't help but feel the same way about some of the things I've seen written in the Catholic blogosphere surrounding SSPX controversies over the past several years as well. In light of this latest blow-up, and the fact that the Pope has approached this group with an extraordinary amount of solicitude, a group that has a notorious holocaust denier within its leadership, a lot of people might be inclined to look at the incident with Gibson in a more serious light than they had previously.

As for Paula Fredriksen, the Aurelio Professor of Scripture at Boston University, I think she's an important scholar to study. Her work serves as a good counterweight to the outmoded supersessionist view that Christianity is both the fulfilment of Judaism and its destruction, an anti-Old Testament view that verges close to marcionite heresy, if you ask me.

I often hear that Vatican II was merely a pastoral council that didn't change any doctrine. That isn't really true. An ecumenical council teaches infallibly, and the teaching of the Church in relation to the Jewish people changed. I agree with the SSPX in at least that much. The teaching changed.

So, speaking of schisms and all.... You don't have to agree with everything she says of course, but it may be more accurate to think of Christianity as a form of Judaism, not a replacement of it. In the grand eschatalogical scheme, we will be united.

Re-evaluating the “Old Perspective on Paul.” St. Paul in his Jewish Context. Understanding Christianity as an Extreme Form of Judaism

Click on the image...



One of the most important aspects of Fredriksen's work, in my opinion, is that she increases our knowledge of Second Temple Judaism (and therefore, the historical Jesus and his disciples), by pointing out that ritual impurity had no moral aspect to it. Ritual impurity (as opposed to moral impurity), was not considered the same thing as sin. It makes you see the Gospels a bit differently when you become aware of that.

Here is a series of lectures she conducted at Princeton in October 2007, "Sin: The Early History of an Idea”

Professor at Boston University, Wellesley College grad, mother of a teenager and Red Sox fan, I find her engaging to listen to. She has a new book out, 'Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism.

Here are the video lectures in Realplayer format. Go here and look in October 2007 to find them in Windows Media format.

"God, Blood, and the Temple"

"Flesh and the Devil"

"A Rivalry of Genius"

From one of her books:

We know much more about ancient Jewish laws regulating purity than we do pagan ones, because the Jewish laws are still published: Their establishment, together with the correct protocol for offerings, constitutes much of the matter between God and Moses in the opening books of the Bible. The biblical narrative specifies purity as a condition for a person's approaching the Divine Presence - in the language of the story, appearing before the tent of meeting; in Jesus' period, going to the Temple. Impurity in this context is an actual, objective, usually temporary state. It might be incurred through certain natural (and often involuntary) bodily processes, such as ejaculation, menstruation, childbirth or miscarriage, or various genital discharges. Certain defiling substances or objects-human corpses especially; also scale disease (the biblical "leprosy," which could afflict clothing, houses, and furniture as well as persons); the bodies of some animals-could convey their impurity through contact or even proximity.

Scripture assumes that everybody at some point would be in such a condition some of the time-it was virtually unavoidable-and most people were in such a condition most of the time. But Scripture also prescribed the means to remove impurity. A system of "wash-and-wait"- immersion and observing a liminal time period (until sunset; seven days; forty days: it varied, depending on the case)-cleansed most impurities…

The evangelists' position as regards the Temple, then, is closer to ours, despite the nineteen centuries that intervene between us, than to that of those generations who immediately precede them. They, like us, know something that none of the historical figures about whom they wrote could have known: that is, that Jerusalem's Temple was no more…

Whatever the traditions they inherited about Jesus and Jerusalem, they received them in a period with a much-altered religious reality: the cult mandated by God to the Jewish people, whose details stretched through four of the first five books of Scripture, whose performance had been the particular responsibility of the Jerusalem priesthood, and whose manner of execution had fueled the wars of interpretation and the vigorous sectarianism of the late Second Temple period, had ceased to exist. Inherited sayings and stories about Jesus and the Temple, or about Jesus and the laws of purity concerning the Temple, or about Jesus and those groups whose piety focused especially on the Temple, accordingly acquired a dimension added by the evangelists' own, post-70 perspective: Jesus spoke about and interacted with an institution and its religious authorities that had vanished. How could he not have known what would so shortly happen? What could God have meant by permitting such a massive destruction? The evangelists' efforts to respond to these questions intimately affected their retelling of tradition.

Resist the Temptation Towards Cynicism

Seek no refuge from commitment


Diogenes (the Cynic), by John William Waterhouse (1882)

This is sort of a double-tag. Fr. Ron Rolheiser, in Secularity and the Gospel: Being Missionaries to Our Children, quoted a passage from God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, by Jim Wallis.

Prophetic faith does not see the primary battle as the struggle between belief and secularism. It understands that the real battle, the big struggle of our times, is the fundamental choice between cynicism and hope. The prophets always begin in judgment, in a social critique of the status quo, but they end in hope — that these realities can and will be changed. The choice between cynicism and hope is ultimately a spiritual choice, one that has enormous political consequences.

First, let’s be fair to the cynics. Cynicism is the place of retreat for the smart, critical, and formerly idealistic people who are now trying to protect themselves. They are not naïve. They know what is going on, and at one point, they might even have tried for a time to change it. But they didn’t succeed; things got worse, and they got weary. Their activism, and the commitments and hopes that implied, made them feel vulnerable. So they retreated to cynicism as the refuge from commitment.

Perhaps the only people who view the world realistically are the cynics and the saints. Everybody else may be living in some kind of denial about what is really going on and how things really are.

And the only difference between the cynics and the saints is the presence, power, and possibility of hope. And that, indeed, is a spiritual and religious issue. More than just a moral issue, hope is a spiritual and even religious choice.

The Helmet as Weapon

Concussions and other consequences of helmet-to-helmet hits

Pittburgh's Ryan Clark on Baltimore's Willis McGahee



There was a pretty frightening moment in the Pittsburgh Steelers - Baltimore Ravens AFC title game a couple of weeks ago when Pittsburgh safety Ryan Clark put a brutal (but legal) hit on Baltimore running back Willis McGahee, knocking them both senseless. McGahee was wheeled off the field on a stretcher and sent to the hospital. Clark was also sent to the hospital for a concussion test afterwards. Clark said after the game, "This is the first time I've ever had any head injury. It's the first time I've had to take any concussion test afterwards... If you look at most of my hits, I always try to turn and lead with my shoulder, even the McGahee hit. I try my best to tackle in a way where I don't put myself at risk."

Pittburgh's Ryan Clark on New England's Wes Welker



I'm not quite so sure about that... It was helmet-to-helmet. Clark has a reputation for being an intimidator who can bring the "big hit." It's very similar to the one he put on an unsuspecting Wes Welker as he was running an inside route earlier this season. Years ago, there was a lot of talk about helmets being used as intimidating weapons in NFL games, spurring imitation at lower levels from the NCAA down to Pop Warner.

Florida's Major Wright on Oklahoma's Manny Johnson



With the ensuing outcry, things seemed to get better for a while, but with the pressure to win combined with the intense competitive spirit of the game and glaring media spotlight, it appears to me to be on the rise again. I love football, and I like to watch a tough physical contest as much as anyone else, but there's a right way and a wrong way to tackle. I know these defensive backs love to put a good stick on these flashy receivers who can burn them and make them look bad, but there's something gutless about putting your helmet in the chin of a man who's helpless and completely exposed.



My oldest son loved playing youth football, even though he's not very big. His first coach was great guy, but a stern and demanding taskmaster. My son loved playing for him. Go figure... Sometimes kids can take orders and discipline from other people better than they can from their own parents. At any rate, his coach told me later that the first time he saw my son's lack of size and experience, he thought to himself, "what am I going to do with this kid?" Over time, however, my son impressed him with his coachability and his toughness (a commodity the coach found to be generally lacking in our town). He wound up starting at cornerback and was moved to inside linebacker by the end of the season.

One thing that helped was the fact that I'd taught him how to tackle and his coach had reinforced the same lesson. To tackle someone (anyone) properly, you put your shoulder right into his belt buckle, drive, and wrap up. A ballcarrier can try all the head fakes, eye shifts, and fancy footwork he wants, but the hips don't lie. The hips invariably tell you the direction someone is moving in. A little guy can tackle a big guy this way just using the proper mechanics.

For his second season, my son wasn't able to move up to the next division with his coach and the rest of the squad because he hadn't put on enough weight. He was unhappy with his new coach, because he allowed too much head-to-head contact in practices. This lack of disclipline frustated and irritated my son. When he started complaining of headaches after practices, that was it. No more football.



From that point on he's gotten more serious about his soccer and has become quite good at it, although I still think swimming and diving are his best sports.

The gist of all this? The cost of all the helmet-to-helmet activity is becoming more and more visible in the NFL and elsewhere. The two starting quarterbacks in the Super Bowl, Kurt Warner and Ben Roethlisberger, have each suffered from a number of serious concussions in their careers. In this article, As study reveals NFL headache, concussions could cloud Kurt Warner and Ben Roethlisberger, its says...

A Boston University study unveiled this week uncovered new evidence concerning chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease caused by head trauma. Six former NFL players, all dead by 50, were found to have the condition, which doctors say can cause victims to lose control of their emotions, suffer depression and eventually, dementia.

Two of the players, former Eagle defensive back Andre Waters and ex-Steeler guard Terry Long, committed suicide, and a third, ex-Oilers linebacker John Grimsley, died after accidentally shooting himself. Tom McHale, a former Bucs offensive lineman, died of a drug overdose. Justin Strzelczyk, the former Steelers lineman, died in a head-on collision after leading New York State Thruway police on a high-speed chase.

In addition, the study reported the discovery of damage from CTE in the brain of a deceased 18-year-old who suffered multiple concussions while playing high school football.

Ted Johnson, formerly of the New England Patriots, was known as our "Bettis-Stuffer." This linebacker out of Colorado was one of the few defenders in the league who could stop this pantload from Pittbsurgh, Jerome Bettis, one-on-one. The contact from those, and other clashes, left a terrible legacy for Johnson.

Read Johnson's story in: 'I don't want anyone to end up like me' - The Boston Globe

"Officially, I've probably only been listed as having three or four concussions in my career," Johnson said. "But the real number is closer to 30, maybe even more. I've been dinged so many times I've lost count."

It has all unraveled; his career, his marriage, his health, his reputation. Former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson was once a Super Bowl champion and a fan favorite, admired for his jarring hits and thoughtful approach to a violent game.

But now he is a struggling ex-athlete who has become unreliable and unreachable -- making promises and commitments he does not keep -- the subject of steamy tabloid gossip, shunned for an alleged domestic abuse incident involving his wife.

Johnson, 34, suffers from such severe depression that some mornings he literally cannot pull himself out of bed. When the crippling malaise overtakes him, he lies in a darkened room, unwilling to communicate with his closest family members.

The 10-year NFL veteran believes his current state is a direct result of a career in which he absorbed "countless" head injuries, including back-to-back concussions suffered within days during the 2002 season, when he says the Patriots didn't give him proper time to recover.

Desperate for answers, Johnson scheduled an appointment to receive electric shock treatment before deciding at the last moment to forgo that option.

Johnson's multiple symptoms include depression, dizziness, excessive drowsiness, fatigue, irritability, memory loss, poor concentration, ringing in the ears, and acute sensitivity to noise.

According to Dr. Cantu, who has been treating Johnson since last May, post-concussion syndrome can occur from a single concussion, but is more likely to occur after multiple concussions, and most likely to occur when the patient has endured back-to-back concussions without time for the first concussion to clear.

Johnson toyed with going public with his story before. He shared his struggles with the Globe last summer, but later requested his comments be put on hold. The recent suicide of former NFL defensive back Andre Waters, who had multiple concussions and suffered from depression, finally prompted Johnson to come forward.

"I want people to realize that you don't have to 'black out' to have a concussion," he said. "Most times, the symptoms of a concussion don't show up for hours, sometimes days. And this isn't just happening in the NFL. High school kids get concussions, and aren't properly monitored.

"Every day there is a new study linking concussions to depression, as well as early onset of Alzheimer's disease. It doesn't have to happen. It shouldn't happen.

"I don't want anyone to end up like me."


One of the things that bothered me the most about Clark's hits is that they remind me very much of the one that Jack Tatum left on Darryl Stingley which left him paralyzed.

Listen to WBUR ON-Point: Concussions and the NFL NFL wives speak out. Are their husbands suffering brain damage from playing in the National Football League?

Is it Time to Look at Usury as a Sin Again?

Hey, how'd you like John Thain, the Clark Kent lookalike, he of the 1.2 million dollar office renovation and ex-head of Merrill Lynch?

Back in September, when Hank Paulson called in a bunch of Wall Street bigshots to take a look at what should be done with Lehman Bros and the other investment houses in trouble, Thain made sure that he and his boys at Merrill were going to be well taken care of. When Merrill was picked up by Bank of America, he didn't come clean on just how bad things were at Merrill. Now that he's attempted to use some of that bailout money to pay out bonuses to himself and his buddies and the true Merrill losses can be clearly seen on the books, he's been canned by BoA. See this article:

Mr Thain realised that Mr Paulson was making little progress in finding a consensus about how to save Lehman. By Saturday night, with no bailout on the table and no firm bidder, Mr Thain concluded that not only would Lehman collapse but that Merrill would be next, and he phoned Ken Lewis, the chief executive of America’s biggest retail bank, Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

By Sunday afternoon the deal to sell Merrill Lynch for $50 billion to BoA was signed and sealed. It was not just the takeover Mr Thain raced through. He also tried to seize a $10 million bonus for himself and forced through the early payment of up to $4 billion of bonuses to Merrill’s top executives despite knowing about the rapidly escalating losses the bank was incurring.

By December, just three months into the merger, Mr Lewis began to discover from his own integration team that Merrill was on course to lose $3 billion in the fourth quarter and $15.4 billion over the year. The shock forced him this month to go to the US Treasury and beg for $118 billion in asset guarantees and $20 billion in rescue financing.

On Thursday, Mr Lewis flew from Charlotte to Manhattan to sack John Thain. As every financier knows, consistency is key to success. How appropriate, then, that a banker who had long enjoyed the excesses of Wall Street should choose to go skiing in the rich resorts of Colorado once BoA’s losses were out in the open.

These guys are unbelievable.

You know, I have auditors from PricewaterhouseCoopers poring over just about everything I do, according to Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. When they ask me if a particular business representative from the Billing Dept. was authorized to sign off on the minor code changes we've made, I'm tempted to ask them if they've already found out where the federal bank bailout money went last Fall. I'm tempted to ask them if they've figured out what was in the "black box" Bernie Madoff used to run his Ponzi Scheme.

The working world really is a lot like that TV show The Office, but even more surreal. You can't make up this kind of absurdity.

The banks still aren't lending. Nobody knows where the bailout money went, and wherever it went, it apparently didn't work. In the meantime, they say the average American household is carrying well over $5,000 in credit card debt, and credit card rates are at a usurious rate of over 14%. The credit card industry will be the next thing to go kablooey, I suppose.

This all reminded me of a passage from Judge John T. Noonan's book
A Church That Can And Cannot Change: The Development Of Catholic Moral Teaching, on the subject of usury. During the Middle Ages, of course, the lending of money at interest was considered a sin. Around the 1570's or so, there was movement on this teaching. Noonan describes what provided the impetus for the change - The German Triple Contract.

The Triple Contract

On June 22, 1573, a commission of Jesuit provincials and theologians, meeting in Rome, issued a decision to guide all Jesuit confessors, preachers, and moralists in their treatment of the so-called "German contract" or "5 percent contract," whereby five percent was charged on money advanced to another person. Generically, the contract was a loan from which profit was made; as such it was usurious and therefore morally unlawful, the commission ruled.

Analysis showed that there was a way of looking at it that made it right.

A contract of partnership in which the capitalist got a return on the capital he invested was perfectly legitimate. Say he could reasonably expect 10 percent. Then suppose he entered into a contract of insurance guaranteeing the return of his principal and surrendered 3 percent of his expected 10 percent in exchange for the guarantee. Again, it was perfectly legitimate.

Suppose he surrendered another 2 percent to be guaranteed his profit - also legitimate.

Then suppose he entered these contracts of guaranty with his partner, so that 5 percent of the expected return on the capital went to his partner, and he was guaranteed the return of his capital and 5 percent. The three contracts were all lawful. What was wrong with collapsing them into a single contract, "the triple contract"? What was wrong with finding the triple contract not spelled out but implicit in every contract at 5 percent where investor intended to act lawfully?

Nothing was wrong, concluded the commission.

We seem to be in the world of Enron's financing where loans are packaged as sales and insurance companies guarantee the interest. How did such intricate lawyerly analysis come to occupy the attention of the most acute moral theologians in Europe? What development of doctrine was represented by this decision of 1573, which was reaffirmed by another Jesuit commission in 1581 that at the same time taught that a loan at 5 percent was "intrinsically evil?" To answer these questions it is necessary to look at Scripture and fifteen hundred years of reflection on Scripture.

Were you able to follow all that?

Ah, those lax Jesuits. :-)

I don't know if I followed it all properly, but it sure sounded a lot like collateralized debt and insured credit default swaps to me. The same kind of stuff that did such damage to Enron, Lehman, Fannie Mae and AIG and others....

Were we too rash when it came to easing up on usury? Is it time to take a look at it again? After all, it was the only thing that Christ ever became violent about.


Christ Driving the Money Changers out of the Temple, by Valentin De Boulogne (c. 1618)

I glazed over a bit going over the ins and outs of what Noonan went on to describe, but there was one thing he left out. By 1580 or so, the heifer had already left the barn, because John Calvin had already offered his opinion that money could be lent at interest, and his advice was already being followed in Protestant Europe. It's fair to assume that Venetian and Florentine merchants already knew a thing or two about doing business with credit too.

Now, I'm not one of these guys who gets all dewey-eyed about the supposed splendor of the Middle Ages and the golden 13th Century of reforming popes and scholastic saints, etc.... There was too much strappado, trial by fire, trial by water, breaking-on-the-wheel, burning-at-the-stake, crusading and that sort of thing for me to get too sentimental about it.

On the other hand, there were great achievements that are now underappreciated, and some valuable good that has been lost. We've certainly heard plenty over the years about the "Protestant Work Ethic" and the contribution of the Reformers to the spirit of democratic capitalism from the likes of Max Weber to Paul Blanshard to William Manchester to Samuel Huntington and so on, comparing it favorably to the supposed backwardness and slothfulness to be found in latifundist, agrarian Catholic countries.

Therefore, I think it's fair to pay attention to a different take from British author Tom Hodgkinson....

IF THERE’S ONE element of my book How To Be Free that the scoffers really rounded on, it was the positive light I threw on various medieval institutions and approaches to life. To see anything good in the Middle Ages contradicts our neophyte conditioning. But the medievals really did have some excellent ideas. Community rather than individuality was at the heart of the medieval approach to things. For example, Florence and the city states called themselves communes, and governed themselves with a revolving panel of guild master craftsmen.

Well, the medieval approach to economics is particularly interesting given what is happening in the financial world right now, because it specifically banned usury, that is, the lending of money at interest. Usury was reserved for the lowest of the low. It was not the done thing. The medieval society had taken to heart Biblical injunctions against usury and also the example of Jesus turning over the tables of the money-changers.

Usury was wrong for a variety of reasons. Firstly, by charging interest on loans, you were taking advantage of the bad luck of your fellow human. The medievals had a stronger belief in Providence than we do today. So it did not necessarily mark you out as a loser if you needed to borrow money. And your bad luck, which was caused by God, should certainly not provide an opportunity for another to exploit you. This of course is the precise opposite to the situation we’ve been living with for the last two or three hundred years, where the whole financial system revolves around usury and indeed, till recently, those who most successfully exploited others were known as the Masters of the Universe. usury is a profoundly selfish and unneighbourly practice. Usury is robbing the poor to feed the rich (and it is still banned today in Islam).

Money for the medievals was not for hoarding or for lending, but for spending. To accummulate it for is own sake would be to commit the sin of avaritia, or greed, a deadly sin. Medieval cathedrals are full of unsympathetic carvings of the spend thrift “money bags” character, the miser who jealously hoarded his cash. Greed was bad.

Usury was also banned because in committing it, you committed the sin of sloth: you had not worked, you had not created anything, you had merely waited and you had made a profit. This was was wrong.

Furthermore, in lending money at interest, you were in effect selling time, and time did not belong to man. It to belonged to God. It was later, in the 18th century, that the dynamic Benjamin Franklin changed things when he wrote: “Time is money” and “Credit is money”. For the medieval to think in such terms would be a colossal arrogance...

There was an enormous amount of productivity in the Middle Ages, and an enormous amount of global trade, particularly before the Black Death. But, as G. K. Chesterton points out, it was trade based on the values of cooperation rather than competition. Work and commerce was arranged around the guild system, later more or less destroyed during the Reformation. Guilds were brotherhoods of workers who banded together to protect their own interests. To undercut your brother in the Guild of Linen-dyers, for example, by offering the same cloth at a cheaper rate, was profoundly unethical behaviour, because you were acting in your own interest rather than the broader interest of the guild. It was unbrotherly to overcharge or undercut.

Overwork, too, another damaging feature of contemporary civilization, was frowned upon. To work too hard showed a lack of faith in God’s providence. “Consider the lilies of the field,” Jesus had said in the Sermon on the Mount, his great Taoist line: “They toil not, neither do they spin.” Do not worry about tomorrow, Jesus had said. Do not store up your wealth. Things will be all right. It was the exact opposite of what we have been conditioned to believe today, which is that you should get pensions and insurance and worry about the future.

Now far from being somehow creatively or technologically inferior to our own age, this was the system that produced the cathedrals, architectural feats that have yet to be bettered. It produced the beautiful city states such as Florence and Arezzo. It produced illuminated manuscripts, and the freedom-loving republics of Amsterdam and Antwerp. It was a less exploitative system: all that sailing around the world and plundering came later. The people were more closely connected to the land. In short, it was an anti-capitalist system of trade and production. But it was not communist because it was not statist. This is where the right wingers get it so wrong when they state that the only alternative to capitalism doesn’t work and it’s called communism.

Today we are seeing a swing back towards medieval economics. The usurers are being punished and their faces paraded on the front of newspapers. Our ethical pundits are calling for the top bankers to be named and shamed, to do penance, to confess. In the same way, the medieval usurer, on his deathbed, was required to give back all the profits of his extortion if he wanted to go to heaven...

Our economists might do well to explore further the medieval system. It tried to be fair, it tried to guard against exploitation, it produced many things of great beauty and it lasted until Calvin. And at its heart was a sense that we are all this together, we are brothers and sisters, and we should behave as cooperators and not competitors.

There's the knock on John Calvin. Interesting. I noticed once that Peter Maurin, co-founder with Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker Movement, and normally a pretty mild-mannered fellow, worked over your man Calvin pretty harshly in his collection of writings called Easy Essays:

Before John Calvin people were not allowed to lend money at interest.
John Calvin decided to legalize money-lending at interest in spite of the teachings of the Prophets of Israel and the Fathers of the Church.

Protestant countries tried to keep up with John Calvin and money-lending at interest became the general practice.

And money ceased to be a means of exchange and began to be a means to make money.

So people lent money on time and started to think of time in terms of money and said to each other: "Time is money."

When John Calvin legalized money-lending at interest, he made the bank account the standard of values.

When the bank account became the standard of values, people ceased to produce for use and began to produce for profits.

When people began to produce for profits they became wealth-producing maniacs.

When people became wealth-producing maniacs they produced too much wealth.

When people found out that they had produced too much wealth they went on an orgy of wealth-destruction and destroyed ten million lives besides.

Because John Calvin legalized money-lending at interest, the State has legalized money-lending at interest.

Because the State has legalized money-lending at interest, home owners have mortgaged their farms; institutions have mortgaged their buildings; congregations have mortgaged their churches; cities, counties, States and Federal Government have mortgaged their budgets.

So people find themselves in all kinds of financial difficulties because the State has legalized money-lending at interest in spite of the teachings of the Prophets of Israel and the Fathers of the Church.

Was this fair? Could a modern economy ever have taken off without allowing the lending of money at interest? Was the creation of the modern economy a good thing?

I'm certainly no fan of the theology of John Calvin, but was the criticism of him on this particular matter fair? One thing I'll grant to Calvin. He was a darned good lawyer. If you can get past the presuppositions on which he built his arguments (whether we agree with them or not), he usually had the ability to defend his ideas with cold, ironclad, bulletproof logic. You can check it out in one of the links below.

Thomas Aquinas Concerning Usury

John Calvin Concerning Usury

Jeremy Bentham: In Defense of Usury

America's Painter Passes On

Andrew Wyeth (1917 - 2009)

The Finn, (1969)

The great American painter Andrew Wyeth passed away today at the age of 91. He died in the same place where he was born, Chadds Ford, PA. Andrew Wyeth has always been one of my favorite painters. In fact, I never gave painting much thought until my mother dragged me away from the neighborhood clubhouse one spectacular Summer afternoon around 1970, so that we could see the Andrew Wyeth exhibit at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts. I was sullen and I grumbled about being hauled away from my friends, but I was captivated by Wyeth's work as soon as I saw it up close... I've been an aficionado ever since. In fact, we still keep the framed print of Christina's World that my mother bought that day in the upstairs hallway of our house even though Anne (and just about everbody else) thinks it's gloomy and depressing.


Pennsylvania Landscape, (1941)

He was the son of the reknowned illustrator N.C. Wyeth, and father of another fine artist and portrait-painter, Jamie Wyeth. Actually, I've always preferred the rough-and-ready themes and bold colors in N.C's work, even though N.C. couldn't hold a candle to his son in terms of talent. N.C.'s childhood home in Needham MA (which shows up in his illustration of Blind Old Pew in Treasure Island) is only a few miles from where we live. Jamie's work is very good too, but kind of edgy for me. Andrew's sister Henriette, I don't know much about.


The Sisters, (1990)

The year 2008 was a tough one in terms of losing several American icons. This year has started out with another great loss.

January is Robert Shaw Month II

"Ah, what an evening! A man could fight a lion!"

"Some men could, your grace."



In A Man for All Seasons (1966), Robert Shaw was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in his portrayal of the young Henry VIII. In this scene he's meeting with his friend Sir Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor of England. More is played by the brilliant actor Paul Scofield, who just passed away in March of 2008. Scofield won the Oscar for Best Actor in that role. The film won a ton of awards, including Best Picture.

Here, Henry is alternately begging, flattering, bullying, cajoling and threatening More into backing him on his wish to divorce Catherine of Aragon in order to marry Anne Boleyn. As they fence jovially over the finer points of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, More is having none of it and holds his ground, but he knows at this point that he's a dead man.

The film was good hagiography, but was Thomas More really a Man for All Seasons? I doubt William Tynedale would have thought so.

American Obscurantism

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God...

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God...

Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.

But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.

-- Martin Luther

Okay, is that custom church sign too provocative with its Martin Luther quote? Maybe so, but I'm sorry. The direction that Protestantism in this country is heading in is scaring the heck out of me.

I saw this graphic in the Boston Pilot a couple of weeks ago, which was culled from a November 2008 Harris Poll.



Belief in God is roughly the same... but I don't know which bothers me the most, the fact that only 32% of Protestants believe in the Theory of Evolution (although the statistic of only 52% of Catholics isn't necessarily something to crow about), that over half of Protestants believe in Creationism, or that over half of Catholics believe in ghosts and nearly half believe in UFOs.

In the 2007 Harris Poll, they made a distinction between Protestants and Born-Again Christians for some strange reason, and only 16% of Born-Again Christians indicated that they believed in evolution.

What accounts for the differences? I suppose most everyone would agree that it boils down to the sola scriptura principle and biblical literalism. The only thing puzzling about that particular explanation is that there are references to ghosts in the Bible.

As for UFOs, I guess people could make the argument based upon numerical probabilities. One thing I'm pretty sure of. If UFOs were mentioned explicitly in the Bible, the percentage of people who believed in them would skyrocket significantly. I've always found this a curious thing about sola scriptura... People who will believe without a shadow of a doubt that a virgin had a baby, that a crucified man rose from the dead, that there are three persons in one Godhead, and that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, all based upon evidence in ancient texts, are vehemently loathe to accept something like the Immaculate Conception because it's "not biblical" and will ridicule the very notion as "man-made superstition."

A priest in my parish is fond of saying that "faith should take us beyond reason but should never take us beneath reason." We could all debate about whether or not all Christian doctrines are beyond or beneath reason, but one thing is certain, and that is that the Catholic Church has a long tradition of at least leaving a place for reason in the dialogue.

The Catholic Church takes a lot of heat over the Galileo affair, sexism, and its supposed retrograde thinking in a whole host of areas, but it's not entirely clear that the reformers offered an improvement in this regard by any means.

In his marvelous book Aristotle's Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages, author Richard Rubenstein tells the fascinating story of how Aristotle was rediscovered in Europe and how after a long struggle, aristotelian philosophy, which underlies the origins of modern secular science, was succesfully integrated with Catholic theology by Thomas Aquinas and others. From the editorial review:

Christian theologians rediscovered Aristotle through the commentaries of the monk Boethius, who argued in the sixth century that reason and understanding were essential elements of faith. There resulted a tremendous ferment in the study of Aristotle in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, culminating in the work of Thomas Aquinas, who used Aristotle's notion of an Unmoved Mover and First Cause to construct his arguments for God's existence. Aquinas, too, argued that reason was a necessary component of faith's ability to understand God and the world.

There was opposition to scholasticism to be found of course, from such quarters as the Dominicans' Franciscan rivals, but the Protestant reformers in particular were utterly contemptuous of Aristotle and the "sophistry" of the schoolmen. In the extended quote below, Rubenstein explains how this represented a step backward from the hard-won achievements of those who championed aristotelianism, and for the synthesis between faith and reason.

With Luther's theological revolution, the separation of faith and reason foreshadowed by William of Ockham's philosophy and Meister Eckhart's religious practice was realized. One is not surprised to discover that Luther and John Calvin opposed Copernicus's sun-centered astronomy as vehemently as did the Catholic Holy Office. The Protestant leaders had determined that the individual's relationship to God need not be mediated by popes and priests; that "Scripture alone," not the authorized interpretations and doctrines of the Roman Church, represented God's unalterable word; and that the papacy was neither authoritative in matters of law nor infallible in matters of doctrine.

By the time they finished stripping away "non-apostolic" customs and doctrines, there would be little left of the Church as a public institution. Moreover, the attack on scholastic theology would tend to put questions of belief beyond the realm of rational argument. Luther "knew" that man is justified by faith alone because, while reading the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, he came upon Paul's quotation from Habakkuk, "He who through faith is righteous shall live," and was illuminated." Suddenly, he understood the relationship of faith to salvation. Because of this experience, his sermons took on a new character. As a classic biography of the Reformer puts it:

It was not an eloquent rhetorician or a pedantic schoolman that spoke, but a Christian who had felt the power of revealed truths, one who drew them forth from the Bible, poured them out from the treasures of his heart, and presented them all full of life to his astonished hearers. It was not the teaching of a man, but of God."

This was all very well if one agreed with Luther's interpretation of the passage from Romans, but many other Christians (including most Catholics) did not. How to determine, in such cases, which interpretation was correct?

Eliminating the Church as the sole authorized interpreter of Scripture opened the door to the fundamentalist approach, which asserts that such-and-such is the literal meaning of the text, not an interpretation at all, or that a particular interpretation is divinely inspired, and therefore unquestionable. In Luther's time and afterward, Christians fed up with fanciful, allegorical interpretations of the Bible that reflected the prejudices of the interpreter were inclined to embrace this type of literalism, especially if it was accompanied by the sort of illumination that Luther himself had experienced.

Fundamentalist literalism, in other words, was not a feature of the medieval worldview from which modern rationalists had to be "liberated." It came into the world as a result of the same attack on Aristotelian-Christian thinking that produced secular science. One can imagine this as a sort of intellectual nuclear fission. Bombarded by its early modernist opponents, Aristotelianism implodes, generating a coldly objectivist science and a passionately subjectivist religion.

Follow one of these links to watch a short video featuring the Vatican Astronomer Fr. George Coyne SJ, discussing evolution (hat tip to Maria at Confessions and Contemplations by way of Busted Halo).

January is Robert Shaw Month

"I'll never put on a life jacket again..."


Actor and Author Robert Shaw (1927-1978)

There were several actors from years ago who vaguely reminded me of my dad. I think of David Janssen in particular, and even Frank Sinatra in some ways. One of those actors who most reminded me of him was the late Robert Shaw. He was roughly the same age as my father and they both died the same year.

My dad and I went to see Steven Spielberg's movie Jaws when it came out in 1975. This all comes to mind, as sort of a follow-up to the Pacific War reference in the previous post, because I've been recently looking over Richard F. Newcomb's 1958 bestseller, Abandon Ship! The Saga of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, the Navy's Greatest Sea Disaster. It's the horrific story of the heavy cruiser USS Indianapolis, which was sunk in the closing days of World War II by a Japanese submarine shortly after transporting the atomic bomb (that would later be dropped on Hiroshima) from the West Coast to Tinian Island.

In this scene from Jaws the shark-obsessed skipper Quint (Robert Shaw) is sitting in the cabin of his boat with marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and Amity Island Police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) while they're taking a break from hunting the Great White. Quint and Hooper are comparing old "battle scars" and Brody briefly considers whether he should bring up his appendectomy or not... Anyhow, it comes out that Quint happened to be a crewman aboard the USS Indianapolis, and he goes on to tell the true tale of the harrowing fate that was endured by the sailors who entered the water... One has to suppose it explains his vendetta against sharks. It's one of my favorite movie monologues.

Quint's Monologue from Jaws on the Fate of the USS Indianapolis Crew





During World War II, the Indianapolis served as the flagship for Vice-Admiral Raymond Spruance's 5th Fleet. She was heavily damaged by a kamikaze attack during the Battle of Okinawa and was sent back to the States for repairs. After being being repaired and refitted in San Francisco, she was chosen for the top-secret mission of delivering the components and uranium core for the first operational atomic bomb to Tinian Island. The bomb was successfully delivered and assembly was finished at the airfield at Tinian. The Indianapolis then stopped shortly at nearby Guam and was given orders to sail onwards to the Phillippines (Leyte) for more training.

Shortly after midnight on July 30, 1945 she was hit by two torpedos from the Japanese submarine I-58 and sank in just twelve minutes in some of the deepest water in the Pacific Ocean.

Spielberg (through Quint) tells the story pretty well, but he does get a couple of details wrong.

Quint claims that "the mission was so secret, no distress signal was sent out." That's not really true. The mission was top-secret, but once they delivered the bomb they were back on standard operating procedures. The first torpedo that struck the ship tore off the bow, and the second knocked out most of the ship's electronics and all of its radio communications. She sank very quickly but the crew was able to get off some SOS signals. Recently declassified Navy documents seem to indicate that the signals were picked up at various points but were ignored as a Japanese ruse.

Quint also makes it sound as if most of the crewmen who survived the initial sinking were devoured by sharks in the aftermath. The ship had a crew of 1,196. Out of those, about 900 made it into the water alive. Out of that 900, only 316 were eventually rescued after being left exposed in the ocean for over 96 hours.

Many of the crewman were eaten by sharks, it's true, but a great many others succumbed to wounds, exposure (blazing sun and heat during the day, frigid temperatures at night), thirst, from drinking salt water, and from drowning (their kapok life jackets were not designed to last more than a couple of days).

Eventually, the men were only discovered at all by mere chance. A plane running a routine anti-submarine patrol spotted them. Far from being a nefarious plot based upon the secrecy of their mission, the reason for their prolonged agony was just plain incompetence and a set of poorly thought-out procedures. In those days, only the arrival of convoy ships was tracked at destination points. The arrival of combatant ships was not, ostensibly for security reasons. When the Indianapolis didn't show up for training at Leyte as expected according to orders, no one thought this was particularly unusual. There were all kinds of reason why countermanding orders might be made for a combatant ship. Nobody thought much of it. To cap things off, the ship had been ordered to leave Guam without an escort even though her Captain had requested one.

However, despite all that, heads needed to roll for it and there was an inquiry and a court-martial... Rather than placing blame on higher-ups for the negligence embodied in their own procedures, and for the whole Navy's lack of interest in the whereabouts of a missing flagship cruiser, the skipper of the Indianapolis, Captain Charles Butler McVay, was chosen to take the fall. Who else? Specifically, he was faulted for not sailing in a zig-zag pattern at the time the ship was struck, even though the Japanese submarine captain testified at the trial that he would have had no trouble sinking the unescorted ship whether she was zig-zagging or not.

Years later, haunted by the memories, and hounded by those who considered him a villain, McVay took his own life. From wiki:

While many of the Indianapolis survivors said McVay was not to blame for the sinking, the families of some of the men who died did. The guilt that was placed on his shoulders mounted until he committed suicide in 1968, by using his Navy issue revolver. McVay was discovered with a toy sailor in one of his hands on his front lawn.

The whole atomic bomb connection with this story makes it especially creepy... I'm not much into the image of a wrathful God dishing out earthly punishments for man's transgressions, but when you look at Hiroshima and this improbable story, you almost have to wonder...

More information can be found at ussindianapolis.org