Still working on part 2 of Age of the Universe. Unfortunately hit a setback when some autodownloaded Microsoft updates caused my computer to repeatedly slam into the Blue Screen of Death (thanks, Microsoft!).
There are lots of stories out there with headlines beginning "Vatican Denies . . . "
The crazy Italian press guarantees lots of stuff that the Vatican needs to deny.
Sometimes the person doing the denying is even using a mental reservation (or something along those lines) when making the denial.
But you know it's significant when the headline only says "Vatican Downplays . . . " If the headline is accurate, it means that there is an implicit, up-front admission on the part of the person that the press interviewed that there is at least some truth to the story.
That's why I really like this headline:
Vatican official downplays report of planned liturgical reforms
A subject that comes up from time to time is how old the world is–either the earth or the cosmos as a whole.
In a short series of posts, I'd like to look at some magisterial texts that have a bearing on this question and offer a few thoughts on them.
The first thought, before I even get to the magisterial texts, is that both positions are compatible with the Catholic faith. You can be a good Catholic and hold that the universe is thousands or millions or billions or trillions or quadrillions or other numbers of years old. The Church does not teach any particular age or age-range for the earth or the cosmos. You can follow the evidence where you think it leads.
This is because the Magisterium has determined that the question of the ages of the earth and the cosmos are principally scientific questions that are not (or at least that do not appear to be) settled by the sources of faith.
This may not always have been so. I would not be at all surprised if there are past papal, curial, or conciliar texts that do indicate an age-range for the earth or the cosmos as part of ordinary magisterial teaching, perhaps in the thousands or tens of thousands of years range.
In fact, if a reader knows of such passages, I'd love to see them.
Such a prior position, at least of itself, would not pose a problem for the Church's current determination since ordinary magisterial teaching is nondefinitive and thus can be revised, as with the case of the Church removing the theological speculation of limbo from its ordinary teaching while still allowing the theory of limbo to be held (a rather striking parallel for what might be the case on the age of the world question).
However that may be, recent magisterial statements have made it clear that the age of the world is an open question and we are not limited to the thousands or tens of thousands of years age-range.
A second thing I'd like to point out before going to the first text is that the Magisterium's current judgment that this is primarily a scientific question puts the Magisterium in an interesting position in terms of how to articulate the position.
Of course, they could always say, "This is a scientific question; the sources of faith don't determine it," and leave it at that, but they usually aren't that concise in how they answer such questions. They want to say a little more about it, and so what they often do is express openness to the modern scientific view but without making a formal endorsement of this view as correct (i.e., "The universe is billions of years old, as modern science tells us").
So that's all to the good.
Here is how the Catechism handles the question:
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."
Periodically there are stories saying that we are running out of petroleum and natual gas, that we are near or even have passed "peak" production of these resources because Earth is running low on them.
SDG here with a public service announcement:
If you have a child (or a nephew, niece, grandchild, etc.) under the age of ten … or an open-minded child of any age … or if you remember childhood well enough to watch films like Bambi and The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh with five-year-old eyes … there is a movie in theaters you really should see, from a filmmaker whose work you really should know.
It does not have commando guinea pigs or magical museum displays in it — thank goodness. In fact, other than Up, it may be the summer’s highest point for family audiences, if not the only other high point.
Ponyo, from Japanese animation master Hayao Miyazaki, opened modestly this weekend — too modestly for a film this charming and imaginative. That parents are taking their children to the likes of G-Force, Transformers and G.I. Joe at multiplexes where Ponyo is playing right next door is downright depressing.
Ponyo is in the tradition of Miyazaki’s 1980s family classics My Neighbor Totoro and Kiki’s Delivery Service — and if you have a child (or a nephew, niece, grandchild, etc.) under ten, etc., you definitely ought to catch those films on DVD. (Recently at Decent Films someone asked me for my top picks for kids under five, and both films made the cut.)
Roger Ebert rightly included My Neighbor Totoro in his first collection of Great Movies, and it’s a close runner-up for my hypothetical all-time top 10 list, if I ever officially drew one up. Kiki’s Delivery Service is also a masterpiece, very similar in spirit — gentle, humane, nearly plotless, full of magic, wonder and humor.
Ponyo isn’t in the same league as these two films, but how many films are? This weekend I went to see it with eight kids ranging from almost 15 to 3. Everyone enjoyed it, including the two 14-year-olds; the three-year-old was mesmerized (and commented on the action throughout), and the six-year-old loved it.
Miyzaki has also created a number of movies that aren’t this gentle and childlike, but are mostly near-masterpieces in their own right — or better. If you don’t know Miyazaki, trust me, he’s well worth checking out. (There’s a reason that Miyzaki is revered and looked to for inspiration at Pixar.)
Miyazakis I particularly recommend include the Animated Film Oscar winner Spirited Away (widely — and rightly IMO — considered the director’s masterpiece) and the sci-fi action epics Castle in the Sky / Laputa and Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. All of these are favorites in our family, though we haven’t shown Spirited Away to the younger ones.
Other Miyazakis include the critically acclaimed Princess Mononoke (which I’m not as fond of), the (rightly IMO) less acclaimed Howl’s Moving Castle, the comparatively overlooked but enjoyable Porco Rosso, and the offbeat The Castle of Cagliostro, an early effort in an independent series about an adventuring thief (lots of fun, but language warning on this one … and note that it’s the only Miyazaki in this post with a Region 1 DVD distributor other than Disney).
An issue to be aware of is that Miyzaki’s films often express reverence for nature and environmental concerns in imaginative idioms reflecting the filmmaker’s cultural background, i.e., animism and Shinto. Tree spirits, river gods and (in Ponyo) sea-goddesses inhabit many (not all) of his films.
I’ve written about the moral issues this raises for Christian viewers in my reviews of My Neighbor Totoro and Spirited Away, among others. FWIW, Miyazaki films that do not raise significant issues along these lines include Castle in the Sky and Kiki’s Delivery Service (see my review for comments about the film’s thirteen-year-old witch protagonist).
I’d like to write up some more Miyzakis when I have some time (I did a DVD Picks column on most of these films for next week’s National Catholic Register), and maybe later this week I’ll do another blog post on Miyzaki’s main themes and things to look for in his movies.
For now, make plans to see Ponyo. You won’t be sorry, I think.
It's true!
Presumably, if they do exercise their free speech right too much, they could be reported to the president's "fishy speech" reporting center.
Or maybe, if he was thinking of the mess of Medicare and Medicate, he's putting LBJ ON NOTICE.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) has sent a letter to President Obama about the White House's program to have Americans snitch on fellow citizens who they believe are saying "fishy" things about health care and undermining the administration's position.
The Obama White House may be breaking the Privacy Act of 1974 by asking citizens to report “fishy” political speech.
It turns out, even asking for citizens to report on each other may be illegal. According to the Department of Justice, “the purpose of the Privacy Act is to balance the government’s need to maintain information about individuals with the rights of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasions of their privacy stemming from federal agencies’ collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information about them.”
Further, anything is considered a “personal record” if it identifies an individual (an e-mail address would qualify), and “federal agency” specifically includes “the Executive Office of the President.”
Appearing on the White House blog creatively titled "The Blog" yesterday was a post that said the following (EXCERPTS):
Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
I can understand the desire on the part of people in the White House to keep a handle on the claims and arguments being used in a policy debate, but . . . isn't it their job to keep track of those?
I mean, just yesterday there was that video of the former totally objective ABC reporter turned Democratic White House staffer Linda Douglass explaining that that was one of her jobs (along with, no doubt, others at the White House). She even showed us her computer, which was using the lame program Microsoft Internet Explorer to connect to the Internet, so we know she can read blogs with the best of them.
But the White House seems concerned that it doesn't have the resources to monitor everything that goes on in America "below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation." So they're asking citizens to report "fishy" statements made by other American citizens to the White House.
Color me skeptical, but creating a program to "flag" e-mails and web sites that take a contrary position to the White House's–a program that relies on citizens reporting their fellow citizens when they send or post something that "seems fishy" (meaning: contrary to the message the White House wants to get out)–strikes me as a misstep.
I imagine whoever is monitoring the e-mail address will get a lot of protests in addition to whatever tips come in. And there will be negative coverage of this on the Internet.
On the other hand, the folks at ReasonTV are taking a constructive attitude . . .
SDG here with a few Decent Films notes.
Remember the LifeSiteNews Harry Potter / Pre-16 brouhaha? Jimmy has written about it more than once (as has Eastern Orthodox Harry Potter maven John Granger).
Well, the story’s still out there, and recently I got an email asking me about the Ratzinger letters as well as Fr. Amorth’s anti-HP comments, so I’ve offered my own take in a piece facetiously called “Harry Potter vs. the Pope?” (a play on the title of my eight-year-old essay “Harry Potter vs. Gandalf“).
The new essay is a spin-off of my Decent Films Mail column, for which I just posted two new batches, DF Mail #14 and DF Mail #15. In these batches: Watchmen and caveats of an (apparent) atheist-anarchist who objects to associating either label with nihilism; lots and lots on Up and Harry Potter; The Wizard of Oz and Theosophism; and more. If you haven’t read my DF Mail column, you might enjoy perusing the last few installments as well.
Also, of course, my review of the latest Harry Potter film has been up for awhile now.
Other new reviews posted since my last Decent Films update include G-Force, Public Enemies and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.
P.S. Sadly, G-Force has nothing to do with the much more awesome “Battle of the Planets.” In fact, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that the whole inspiration for G-Force (other than a corporate mandate to sell talking plush toys to children) began with a single family-film-ified pop-culture reference joke (“Yippie kay yay, coffee-maker”), and then the whole plot was constructed around that single line. What else could possibly be the explanation for a plot about robotic household appliances planning to take over the world (or whatever)?
I really don't understand why President Obama is so interested in passing the type of health care bill he and his colleagues have been trying to ram through Congress.
When this video got linked on Breitbart and Drudge, the White House was quick to respond and put out the following video by Linda Douglass, who you may remember from her time as an ABC reporter. (An ABC reporter getting a job in a Democratic White House . . . fancy that.)
While I confess that I wasn't pleased that the first video has as many cuts in it as it did, I don't find Ms. Douglass's video to be anything other than handwaving.
That won't do.
It's just a slimy political tactic to claim you've been taken out of context and then not provide the original context and demonstrate it.
What she does provide is some recent clips of the president talking about health care, saying reassurring things like if you like your insurance plan or your doctor then you can keep them–clips she says people on the other side of the debate aren't likely to show you. (I did.)
The "out of context" charge also suffered a blow when Breitbart and Drudge linked another video of the 2003 Obama event without a cut in it:
This is more handwaving.
What the President is saying (present tense) about health care isn't sufficient.
The fact is that Obama's previous statements about health care do shed light on his desires and intentions.
And the impression that he is being disingenuous with his present statements is reinforced by his Pinocchio-like style of government, his repeated bait and switch tactics, and his ram-it-through-Congress-before-anyone-including-Congressmen-can-read-and-digest-it behavior.
Ms. Douglass's efforts notwithstanding, there is just no reason to see the President's desire for a "public option" as anything other than a deliberate attempt to get the government into compe
tition with private health insurance companies so it can drive them out of the market and lead to a single payer system.
That is clearly his and his allies' intent, as quotations in the first video show. (The same quotations also disprove the President's assertion that "nobody is talking some government takeover of healthcare"–which is what single payer is.)
It's a disgrace.
