Month: September 2005

Reading Cycles

Have you ever been through reading cycles? Bibliophile though I am, it seems my reading life is one cycle after another. Right now I’m on my non-fiction cycle and reading fiction can be a chore.

I grew up in a Reader’s Haven, although some might have called it a Reader’s Hovel out of exasperation at trying to climb over the stacks of books. My father introduced all of his children to reading and liked to brag of when he was a child and was the only kid in the neighborhood allowed to borrow double the allotment of books allowed by his local library because the librarians knew he’d have them all finished within the two-week loan period.

Similarly, I was also a voracious reader as a kid. When I was in sixth grade I broke the five thousand page record for pages read in a grading period simply because the teacher said it had never been done. (In retrospect, I think he simply said that to encourage kids like me to try to break that limit.) Give me a four-hundred-page book and I could have it finished in two days.

I can still wolf down books, but only if the ones I’m reading fit the cycle through which I’m currently passing. For example, for years I was a romance novel fan. Still love romance novels — they’re a sentimental favorite — but it is now a chore rather than a pleasure to plow through them. When I read fiction these days, I usually do best with the cozy mysteries — especially the foodie mysteries that have recipes printed in the book. I may never try out those recipes, but I love reading through them and imagining how the food would turn out. (Likely better for my waistline anyway!)

But give me a non-fiction book on a subject that interests me — currently, Pope Benedict XVI, marriage, and parenting issues, and please don’t analyze that too deeply! — and once again I have to carefully pace my reading so I’ll have enough book left to read to get me to the next payday. Does anyone else have experience with reading cycles? If so, through what cycles of the Reader’s Haven have you passed?

SoCal vs. The Smog Monster

SmogI grew up in the mountains, away from any large cities, and so smog was something I only heard about.

I knew it was bad. I knew it was in the atmosphere over cities. I knew it was caused by pollution.

But I didn’t know that you could see it.

I found out otherwise when I moved to San Diego and noticed a certain haze that appeared on some days. Someone then identified it for me: That’s smog.

I had no idea.

California take extensive measures to try to cut down on smog. You have to get your car checked on a regular basis to see whether it meets the state’s automotive emissions guidelines (or they won’t renew your license tag). There are ads for "Smog Check"s at virtually all of the filling stations that aren’t tied to a convenience store.

Apparently the smog is much better these days than it was back in the 1970s. It’s also better in San Diego than it is in Los Angeles.

But lately it’s been really bad where I live, in El Cajon (on the outskirts of San Diego). It’s not as bad as in the picture above (that’s of a Moscow rush hour), but it’s bad enough that I can’t see the hills the way I’m supposed to be able to. There’s a haze between me and the hills, and there’s so much haze between me and the most distant hills that I can barely make them out.

It’s not normally this bad, but it’s no fun for allergy sufferers with all that particulate matter in the air.

While I was researching this subject I found a government-run web site that contains air quality forecasts and maps for the whole country.

CHECK IT OUT!

Yesterday we had an unexpected set of thunderstorms (rare phenomena here in SoCal), which washed a lot of it out of the air, so we had a better day today. The previous couple of weeks, though, the haze was really bad.

Like the day I drove out to the Salton Sea.

It was interesting to note that as soon as I got out of El Cajon and drove up in the mountains to Alpine (15 miles away and about 1500 feet higher above sea level), all the smog had vanished and you could see the hills clear as a bell, no matter how far away they were.

More on the trip later.

Ente bTaref `Arabi?

That’s a question that some in St. Blog’s need to be asking themselves. If they don’t understand the question then the answer is "No" or, more properly, La’.

The question means "Do you understand Arabic?" and the reason that they need to ask themselves this is that some folks in the Catholic blogosphere have been freaking out over the fact that Cardinal McCarrick has (again) used the word "Allah" when referring to God in a speech made to a Muslim audience.

To tell you the truth, I wasn’t happy when I saw the transcript of his remarks. Since it’s vanished from the main server at CUA, here’s what he said:

Remarks by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick
Archbishop of Washington and CUA Chancellor

CUA Columbus School of Law

Sept. 13, 2005

Your Majesty, King Abdullah

Your Majesty Queen Rania

Prince Ghazi

Members of the delegation from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Father President

Distinguished guests from many faith communities

Dear friends all,

Your Majesty,

A few months ago, when I was privileged to pray for you on another occasion in this capital city, I asked Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world, to bless you and to help you make your country a bridge across which all nations might walk in unity, fellowship and love.  As I listened to your words today, I believe my prayer is being answered.

Indeed, the Amman Message of November of last year is a blueprint and a challenge not only to the great world of Islam, but to the whole human race.  Your thoughtful leadership is a stirring invitation to all of us, especially to the people of the Book, the family of Abraham, who share so much and who are called to be brothers and sisters in God’s one human family.

You have taken to heart the words of Pope Benedict XVI when he addressed the Muslim leaders gathered with him in Germany last month and invited them all to join him in eliminating from all hearts any trace of rancor, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence.  As you quoted in your splendid talk to us today, Pope Benedict called his listeners, in this way, to turn back the way of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress for world peace.

Your Majesty’s call and that of the Holy Father are in so many ways the same.  May Allah, the merciful and compassionate, continue to guide your steps along this noble path.  May He guide and protect you, your family and your beloved country and may peace and justice come to all lands and all peoples through your efforts, your vision and your courage.

In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate God, we pray.  Amen.

Now the reason I wasn’t happy when I read this is that I knew it would be taken the wrong way by a great many Catholics. Had he asked me if he should refer to God in this way in this speech, I would have advised against it. I suspect that the confusion it would cause would outweigh whatever slight diplomatic edge it might give the talk.

But one should not freak out about this, as some in the blogosphere have been doing.

The fact is that Allah is simply the standard Arabic word for "God." It is used by Arabic-speaking Muslims and Christians alike–including Arabic-speaking Catholics. If you read an Arabic New Testament, it’s going to have Allah where "God" appears in the English version. When they say prayers in Arabic (e.g., the Rosary) and the prayer refers to God, they use the word Allah.

I have more experience on this point than many English-speakers do since I have a lot of Arabic-speaking Catholic friends (Chaldeans, Maronites, etc.). I hang out with their priests, go over to their houses, spend time at their churches, go out to lunch with them, work on projects with them, discuss the situations in their home countries, inject snatches of Arabic into talks I give at their parishes, etc., etc., etc.

And this is just not a big deal.

Not only do Arabic-speaking Christians use Allah amonst themselves, they use it when speaking to Muslims . . . just like Cardinal McCarrick did!

So no freaking out is required over this issue. In fact, it’s counterproductive.

Then there are some folks who see past the word "Allah" but are bent on committing the genetic fallacy, claiming based on dubious historical arguments that the word "Allah" is originally derived from the name of a pagan mood god. This is open to severe objection, but even if it were true it would prove exactly nothing regarding whether the word today is being applied to the true God or not.

Fact is, it doesn’t matter where the word came from. It matters how it’s used. If the word is today used for the true God then that is what it refers to when people today use it. It doesn’t matter how their ancestors may (or may not) have used it.

If it did, we’d be in big trouble because parallel arguments can be made that the divine names Yahweh and Elohim were also based on terms originally applied to pagan deities.

When it comes to the question of whether the word Allah is being used today by Muslims to refer to the true God (y’know, the one who created the universe and appeared to Abraham), not only does the Qur’an indicate that the answer is yes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does, too (CCC 841).

The Catechism doesn’t always say things perfectly, and I’d say that this passage is one that itself could stand some clarification, but the basic conclusion is correct: Whatever flaws Muslims have in their understanding of God (e.g., failing to believe that he is a Trinity, as our Jewish friends also don’t when they worship the true God), they still intend by their use of the word Allah to pick out the being who created the universe and who appeared to Abraham, and that’s a definite description of the true God.

So one can, if one wants, think it ill-advised for a churchman to use this term for God in a public address given in English, but one does not have grounds for freaking out as if the term Allah were itself anathema or as if the Cardinal were deviating from what Church teaching is regarding the question of whether Muslims (however imperfectly) worship God.

Quick MoBleg

A piece back I was looking at some sites that allowed you to call in from a phone and have the results posted as an audio moblog. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find these sites at the moment.

Can anyone point me to them?

Also, anybody know of a combination cellphone-to-podcast service?

Feminist Mormon Housewives

Sometimes while surfing the Internet, I come across a site fascinating for it’s value as an object of curiosity that I just have to let the world know about it.  I guess that’s why God created blogs.

FEMINIST MORMON HOUSEWIVES

Especially interesting was this post by one of FMH’s contributors:

"Can we please (as Mormons) just admit that there are SO incredibly many things that we just don’t have a clue about?

[…]

"During my recent (and really my first ‘real’/deep) crisis of faith, I cannot tell you how unhelpful it was when people would pretend that all good/faithful Mormons never question, never wonder, never doubt.

[…]

"Let me tell you what was helpful to me. A former bishop who admitted he’d had periods of doubt also. A friend who acknowledged that my concerns were significant, but didn’t necessarily apologize for their existence (perhaps to do so would be to apologize for the state of the world, the fact of agency, the wisdom of God in sending us all here to work out our salvation?). President Hinckley who at the beginning of his administration stated that he knew respect had to be earned. And a dear husband who all along the way admits his own ignorance along with mine.

"What makes these frank admissions less depressing is a concurrent continued faith — demonstrated in how these people continue to live their lives. Their honesty makes their faith more meaningful to me. They find value in the gospel in spite of — maybe even because of — their doubts and imperfections. And because of their honesty in this, my ‘unbelief’ has been helped. Because of this, I had to address my concerns to God instead of people, since people don’t have all the answers regardless of the faith, knowledge, and goodness that we do have. And as I have begun to do this, I have been reminded of the points of divine help and contact that had been obscured for a time. Yes, I still have doubts and concerns. But I also feel I’ve gotten some significant direction and answers on a couple important issues for me."

GET THE POST.

While Mormonism is a deeply-flawed non-Christian religion, I have to admire the sentiments this particular Mormon is expressing because she makes an important point. Knowing enough to know what you do not know is a powerful witness and, if Socrates was correct, the beginning of wisdom. For Christians and non-Christians alike, that is a crucial lesson.

Unhappy Western Schism Day!

Today, September 20th, back in the year 1378, was the day that the Great Western Schism started.

Y’know . . . that thing where there were two and then later three guys purporting to be pope at once. . . . Threw all of Europe into confusion. . . . Was a precipitating cause of the Protestant Reformation. . . . All that bad stuff?

Well,

GET THE STORY.

Includes a handy chart of the popes and anti-popes of the period!

More Rumor But . . .

Folks are speculating that B16 will soon allow the former rite of Mass to be celebrated by priests of the Latin rite without special permission from their bishops.

In fact, folks have been speculating that for a while since Pre-16 was open in stating that he thought greater permission should be given for this.

What’s new is that Cambridge professor Eamonn Duffy has been speculating the same thing, in public, and with the addition of a timetable:

In remarks to the National Conference of Priests of Ireland, Eamonn Duffy said that he thought the Pope would make the policy change in October, during the meeting of the Synod of Bishops. The topic for Synod discussions is the Eucharist.

GET THE STORY.

I wonder if the good professor is being overly optimistic. I fully expect that B16 will make sure that the subject is discussed during the Synod, but I don’t know that he’s prepared to simply make the decision at this point if there is strong opposition to the proposal, much less do I think it’ll be announced during the Synod. That’ll take a while even if he carries through on the plan.

If he does, it could help facilitate a healing with the schismatic SSPX, which might then schism itself, with part coming back to the Church and part not.

Or so one might suppose from the comments of jerkboyrogue Bishop Richard Williamson, who’s already out spinning the issue.

GET THE OTHER STORY.

Buddhist, Jew, Jesus-Freak

I thought I was used to the Gospel According to the Celebrity-Du-Jour mishmash of incompatible spiritualities until I stumbled across an interview with actress Goldie Hawn, in which she describes her spiritual practice as a Buddhist-Jew-Jesus-Freak:

"The interesting part of my spiritual life is studying as much as you can. Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism and Shamanism and Judaism, Christianity — you try to learn what the precepts are, what the religion is, and ultimately, it’s based in the same thought, it’s based in the same outcome, you know.

"(Whispers) It just has a different façade.

"We go into religion in order to feel warmer in our hearts, more connected to others, more connected to something greater and to have a sense of peace. I think all religions try to do that, but they corrupt themselves. I like Buddhist thought because it breaks that down; it teaches you how to view your thoughts rather than be your thoughts. We live in this crazy world, full of jobs, and we have to be there, be-be-be — it’s a very demanding, taxing world. The result of meditating is watching your thoughts, detachment from your own precepts of what is right and wrong, things that frustrate you, that you can’t grasp and want to grasp onto.

[…]

"[Domestic partner and fellow actor Kurt Russell] respects [Hawn’s religious beliefs] and I respect his — but there again, that’s not important because you realize it’s all a subjective belief system. I don’t think ‘Well, I can’ be with somebody who doesn’t believe what I do, or I can’t share my spirituality.’ Your spirituality is shared by your actions and your interconnectedness with your family and everybody else. It’s not conceptual. What’s going to make you whole is your self-reflection and examination of yourself."

GET THE STORY.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have thought Ms. Hawn’s spiritual reflections bloggable. It’s the fuzzy-warm trump of feelings that Hollywood spiritualists specialize in. Same-old, same-old. But this quote caught my attention:

"So I would say that for the rest of my life, everything I do has to be with a mode of ethics, good intentions, for a better result for the people closest to me and to the world around me."

The editors at Beliefnet.com found this pearl important enough to use as a pull-quote and compressed it into the line "For the rest of my life, everything I do has to be with good intentions." Not "everything I do must be good," but the suggestion that it doesn’t matter what you do so long as you have good intentions.

No wonder that the old saw says that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.