Frenetic, Distractible, Unfocused Minds

This is a big problem: (what seems to me, anyhow,) the growing lack of ability of young people to maintain focused attention upon one item for a prolonged span of time.

Not everyone has the same intellectual potential. But, among those who are at least average or above average in intellectual gifts, a very important part of becoming adult and a good citizen of our democratic society is developing the virtue of well-reasoned argumentation. This requires first the mental facility to engage a subject in a deep, significant way, to scrutinize it in one's mind against what one already knows, adding in the wisdom of experience and common sense, and thus to come to a reasonable conclusion about something which can then be articulated and defended competently in dialogue with others. This virtue of sound thinking and the effective communication of one's ideas to others is vital for a healthy democratic society. Without it, we cannot have real arguments. And arguments--authentic arguments (not the same as the alternating closed-minded monologues and empty personal attacks that often falsely pass for argumentation)--are crucial. If a democratic society cannot effectively engage itself in the sharpening of mind against mind that takes place with genuine argumentation, the replacement may eventually be some form of totalitarianism.

Witness in evidence of this negative trend: the mass media. Now, the major TV news shows have never been remarkable for their depth. However, it seems to me that in recent years this has been getting worse. One struggles in vain to gain significant context from the frenzied, here-there-everywhere "reports" as they jump around, presenting the viewer with a jumble of visual images along with word phrases that often do not contain complete sentences. The style of media reporting seems to increasingly assume that viewers do not want to think about anything, they just want a smattering of things thrown out to occupy the mind for a brief time. This passes for taking in the news.

What has brought us this decline in clear thinking? Many things, I'm sure. But, certainly one significant factor is the way we use the electronic communications media and how this impacts our habits of mind. Young persons, especially (say, under 30 or so?), have spent a significant part of their formative years attuned to electronic media (internet, texting, etc.) that specialize in packaging information into tiny snippets. Seldom do they, say, read an entire book; more likely to scan headlines, exchange cryptic texts, or watch a one minute video on You Tube. Such habits mitigate against being a people of sound reasoning and argumentation.

Among the many goals that are critical to curtailing the negative cultural drift in America is to raise up our youth to be men and women who can think clearly--who can focus upon something with their minds in a sustained and serious way. How to do this? How to stem this surging tide of ever more unfocused, easily distracted, unfocused minds?

[The post at Inside Catholic, "Turning Conservatism Into a Grunt," got me to thinking along these lines]

Song of Songs 3

I would like to return to my sporadic commentary on the Song of Songs. For my earlier posts see the first here and the second here.

Chapter 1, v 7

The maiden wants to know where her bridegroom is active about his work--where is the place where he is engaged in the world. Where is the place where he is responsible to watch over others--where is it that he has a vocation to guard, protect, and provide for others? For this, this is the place she wants to be also. The maiden senses that she is somehow fated to be joined with the destiny of the work of her groom--she is to be one with not only him, but with his vocation and his place of active engagement in the world. Until she is finally together with him and his field of action in the world, she feels a little bit lost, wandering, with no definite place to belong. Wherever he leads his 'flock' is where she wants to be; this is where she is no longer a vagabond.

[Please note these are simply my reflections based upon Sacred Scripture, following where it seems to lead; I make no claim to anything like a definitive exposition. A highly poetic and literary book of the Bible such as this especially lends itself to multiple interpretations.]

Do Catholics Commit Idol Worship?

While having a pleasant evening last night with a friend and several of her acquaintances, I was reminded of an all-too-common belief among some Protestants: that Catholics (some of them, anyway), when they pray in front of statues or images, are practicing a form of idolatry.

I want to comment on this from the point of view of what it would actually require to really be able to conclude truthfully and honestly that another human being is engaging in idol worship. I'll start by laying out some basic facts that all people of reason and fair judgment should agree with.

Real idol worship (indeed, any worship, for that matter) is an act that is not primarily external but mainly internal to the one doing it. In other words, you cannot tell what is truly in a person's heart--whom (or what) they are worshiping--from outside observation alone. Worship is essentially determined by what comes from the center of a person's soul--from the heart. It does not essentially derive from one's physical gestures or surroundings.

Here is a corresponding observation: You cannot tell that a person regards something as an idol and is worshiping it simply by what physical objects are in front of him, nor, by his physical gestures. For example, some Christians have Sunrise services on Easter Sunday morning. Nothing wrong with this! Now, such a service may involve facing East, toward the rising sun, and engaging in gestures and words of worship. From external appearances only, this might appear similar to ancient pagan sun-worship. Would it be fair, then, for an observer to conclude, without speaking to the worshipers about what they intended in their hearts, that they were worshiping the rising sun? Of course not! Or, consider this. Some Christians like to have some sort of devotional space set up in their home--a place set aside to pray, read the Bible, and worship God. No problem! Now, this might include putting a Bible in a position of special prominence, perhaps on a special stand or pedestal, highlighted with a decorative cloth, and perhaps even a display of real or artificial flowers nearby. An observer might see the pious Christian kneeling in front of the Bible and praying, hands clasped, and conclude, "this person is worshiping the Bible" (as in, the physical book in front of her)--"she is making a physical book into an idol and worshiping it." Would such a conclusion be reasonable or fair, without asking the person what was in her heart as she prayed? No. Certainly not.

I simply would like to point out that the very same consideration should apply to Catholics. By the mere fact that a Catholic is praying, including kneeling, in front of a statue or a religious image, does not by any means prove that they are worshiping that statue or image. And to conclude that they are doing so, without bothering to ask, is tremendously uncharitable. I would even suggest, that to presume that the largest group of Christians in the whole world (more Christians are Catholic in the world than any other group) are idolaters, without knowing what is in their hearts when they pray in front of a statue or image, is incredibly contrary to the love and good will that we are called upon by Christ to have for fellow Christians. We are to love one another, and should presume the best of each other, not the worst.

Any preacher or Christian evangelist who makes any sort of blanket statement implying that people who pray in front of statues or images (i.e. Catholics) are idolaters, is in fact assuming the worst of his fellow Christians. He is presuming to read the hearts of such people, when in fact he does not know what is truly in their hearts at all.

I could go into a Buddhist temple and kneel silently near a statue of Buddha, and yet I could still pray an ardent prayer to Christ in my heart. It might look, from the outside, like idol worship. But, it would not be. Simply being in front of a Buddha would not make any difference to what the prayer in my heart truly was.

I might have a picture of a deceased loved one on my wall. If, on occasion, I were to kiss my fingers and touch the photo, would I thereby be worshiping the photo? Of course not. No fair person would suggest this. The gesture would represent affection for the person represented in the image, not for the image itself.

If I ask another Christian to pray for me for a specific intention, am I thereby making that person an idol? Of course not. If I am especially eager to ask a person who is especially close to Jesus--someone considered holy--to pray for me for a specific intention, would I be making that person an idol? Of course not. It is only natural to have a little more personal emotional investment in asking a person who is very prayerful and Christ-like to pray for you than someone who is less remarkable in this way.

Now, bring all the above to bear in the situation of a Catholic kneeling in prayer in front of a statue of a Saint, and let's say even kissing his fingers and then touching the statue (something I have personally done). First, as I do so, I am by no means worshiping the statue. In truth, any claim I am doing so is highly unjust, and frankly, silly. What am I doing? There is only one being I am worshiping--and that is God, in the persons of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Period. No one else is being worshiped. But what am I doing, then, with the statue? Well, I am simply asking another disciple of Christ--the particular Saint the statue represents--to pray on my behalf for particular intentions. Unless we believe that Christians cease to exist when they die, there is nothing odd about asking a deceased disciple of Christ to pray for me. They are still part of the body of Christ, alive in heaven, and still are able to pray on behalf of others just as people alive on earth can pray for others when asked. And, just as I might be more emotionally moved as I ask someone living whom I consider very holy to pray for me, so too, I am emotionally moved as I ask a brother or sister in heaven to pray for me. So, the gesture of kissing the statue is not worship of the statue. It is simply a very normal, human expression of a particular emotional and spiritual bond that I feel with a particular Saint, especially as I ask him or her to pray on my behalf. It is no more odd or shocking than hugging someone physically living here on earth as I ask him to pray something special for me. This is very human, very normal, and has nothing at all to do with idolatry. The Saint whose statue I kiss--knowing that the statue only symbolizes the person (like kissing a picture of my grandmother)--is not a fiction. This person is a real person, alive now in heaven. And, by the grace of God, I will see this person someday in eternity in the bliss of heaven as we worship our Savior together. I do not think our Lord will mind as I thank my brother for his prayers on my behalf. Isn't this mutual care and concern part of what it means to be brothers and sisters in Christ?

Simple Love: Alison Krauss

All right. I guess I'm on an Alison Krauss kick today.

Here is another beautiful song, "Simple Love." It's not explicitly religious. But, it's wonderful for how it brings out a simple truth we sense inside us that ought to be so about genuine human love. As the lyrics state, love (real love), is "always giving, never asking back."

It's also great because, I think, it shows the importance of parental love for their children--especially the love of a father for his daughter. The song is a tribute by Alison to her parents' love for her (and it highlights her father particularly). It's a simple song about the "simple" love of a Dad for his daughter. I love it. How powerful, and so important, is the love of parents for their children! It roots them in an inner security they will have all their lives.

Here is the video. It's a live performance at the 2007 CMA awards.



Here are the lyrics to the song. What a blessing for a father, to have your daughter sing like this one day about your love for her!

Little yellow house sittin' on a hill
That is where he lived
That is where he died
Every Sunday morning
Hear the weeping willows cry

Two children born
A beautiful wife
Four walls and livin's all he needed in life
Always giving, never asking back
I wish I had a simple love like that

I want a simple love like that
Always giving, never askin' back
For when I'm in my final hour lookin' back
I hope I had a simple love like that

My momma was his only little girl
If he'd had the money he'd have given her the world
Sittin' on the front porch together they would sing
Oh how I long to hear that harmony

I want a simple love like that
Always giving never asking back
When I'm in my final hour looking back
I hope I had a simple love like that

I want a simple love like that
Always giving never asking back
When I'm in my final hour looking back
I hope I had a simple love like that.

There is a Reason; Suffering can Highlight the Love of Christ

Here is a beautiful song written by Ron Block and sung by Alison Krauss: There is a Reason. Click the link for a live video performance. (Unfortunately, I can't embed it).

Take note of the lyrics (below) as you watch. It speaks to the mystery of why Jesus chose to die in the way He did, so full of suffering. He could have saved us with far less suffering, for He is the infinite God; any suffering by the God-man would hold infinite value. Why, then, suffer as much as He did? In part, at least, it was to reveal the sheer depth and limitlessness of His love--to draw us into His heart.

I've seen hard times and I've been told
There isn't any wonder that I fall
Why do we suffer, crossing off the years
There must be a reason for it all

I've trusted in You, Jesus, to save me from my sin
Heaven is the place I call my home
But I keep on getting caught up in this world I'm living in
And Your voice it sometimes fades before I know

Hurtin' brings my heart to You, crying with my need
Depending on Your love to carry me
The love that shed His blood for all the world to see
This must be the reason for it all

Hurtin' brings my heart to You, a fortress in the storm
When what I wrap my heart around is gone
I give my heart so easily to the ruler of this world
When the one who loves me most will give me all

In all the things that cause me pain You give me eyes to see
I do believe but help my unbelief
I've seen hard times and I've been told
There is a reason for it all

Culpability and Intent in Relation to Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

"If you have taken the drug, wonder-dundersol, and then had a tear in your Achilles tendon, contact us! You may be eligible for payment!"

Have you seen any of the commercials in this genre? Some law firm announcing that there is a big lawsuit underway, trying to gather up all the plaintiffs they can to increase the pile of money they can squeeze out of a drug company.

Something very damaging to our society is happening. As a society, we no longer seem to assume good faith on behalf of our fellow Americans. For example, if a new drug ends up having a nasty side effect, a whole lot of people seem all-too-willing to assume that "somebody is to blame." Someone must have done something wrong; somebody must have wanted to cut corners; somebody was incompetent.

Well, maybe. But maybe not.

Producing a new drug is an extremely complex and difficult endeavor. Not many compaines in the entire world can do it consistently. There are many, many things that have to be done and many things that could go wrong. If a new drug ends up having a bad side effect that was not foreseen, it does not mean necessarily that somebody messed up. It just might be a result of the fact that developing drugs is really hard and the drugmakers cannot look into a crystal ball and predict how everything is going to go at every step along the way.

If someone wants to bring a lawsuit against a drugmaker, there should be genuine culpability involved for whatever went wrong. This has to involve intent on some level. If I am making a new drug, and doing everything meticulously as I should, not skipping any steps, doing all the testing carefully, there still could be negative side effects. The drug might be from a natural product, and this product might contain some things that have an unforeseen bad effect in some people that was not uncovered in the development and testing process. In such a situation, I would not be culpable (worthy of blame) for what was simply in the drug naturally, if I carefully followed all the expected procedures for developing and testing the new drug. You can't catch absolutely every possible negative thing all of the time.

If I were a drugmaker, and I was incompetent in some way, or deliberately cut some things short, or did not test properly, etc., then, I might be culpable for not finding out about a negative effect of the drug.

I wonder if anyone who suffers from a bad effect of a new drug cares nowadays about the difference between the above two situations? In the first, even though the drug had a negative effect, the drug maker would not be to blame--he did everything right and tried his very best to produce a good, safe product. However, in the second case, the drug maker did not do everything right. In this case the drug maker would be culpable (at least partly) for the negative effect. This is because somewhere along the way there was an intention--a deliberate decision made with a certain end in mind--to do something (or not do something) that the drug maker knew was not as it should be, yet he did it (or omitted it) anyway.

Same result: a drug with negative effects. But, different culpabilties. In one case the drug maker would be culpable; in the other, not. The difference is in the intention of the drug maker.

We are going to sue ourselves into financial and social ruin if we cannot rediscover this basic difference and accept that it matters.

This applies not only to drugs, but any situation where there has been a negative medical outcome. Was someone truly to blame? If not, then we sould not be suing.

Sometimes, bad things happen and we cannot do anything about it. And, there is not always someone to blame. We need to stop acting as though we have some right to pin blame on somebody simply because we are suffering. We need to grow up, and stop acting as though we are the center of the universe. We need to assume that our fellow human beings have the best intentions in what they do unless we have good reason (and not merely because we want to blame somebody) to conclude otherwise.

Is media annoyance at Letterman's sexual jokes targetting a young girl for real?

Probably just about everyone has heard of David Letterman's pathetic and perverse jokes aimed at Governor Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter, Willow.

The Washington Post published on Sunday a laudable article by columnist Kathleen Parker, "Why Dave's Not Funny," critical of Letterman. Ms. Parker remarked, "children deserve protection from adults who have lost sight of their responsibility to be wardens of the innocent." I agree.

However, I wonder how committed Ms. Parker and other mainstream press people truly are to the admirable notion of bringing negative attention to anyone who would contribute to a social climate increasingly tolerant of using young girls as sexual playthings?

Why do I wonder this? I don't hear any criticism in the major media of the abortion industry for covering up the sexual abuse of young girls by adult men. Silence. Where is their concern for young girls when it would require saying something negative about abortion clinics?

I sent an email to Ms. Parker at the Post:

Thank you for your Sunday article critical of David Letterman. His sexual "jokes" about a 14 year old girl were beneath what any civilized adult should tolerate.

I would like to encourage you to follow-up on this admirable instinct to stand up against anything suggestive of the sexual abuse of minor girls by adult men. Perhaps you might do a feature article on how abortion clinics around the country routinely ignore--even aid--the statutory rape of young girls (who come for abortions to cover-up the ongoing abuse) by never reporting such abuse to the proper authorities even when they have obvious evidence that this is taking place. This is a very real thing that continues to go unnoticed by the major media. Hopefully, in your genuine concern for the abuse of minor girls, you will consider taking on this subject. It would be a great follow-up to the Letterman article. I wonder if he donates to Planned Parenthood?

I won't be holding my breath to see if this happens. It's OK for the Washington Post to chastise a comedian. But the major media loves abortion. They will not criticize it, even if it means turning a blind eye to the ongoing cover-up by abortion clinics all over this country of the sexual abuse of young girls by adult men who prey on them and take them for abortions to destroy the evidence when they become pregnant.

And so this is why I wonder. Is this apparent concern by the Washington Post that young girls not be the targets of sexual abuse for real?