Political humor

This cartoon reminds me of something from the Team America movie that someone told me about (I didn’t see it myself), a satiric pro-American song that I can’t even repeat the title of here. (The cartoon below also has an objectionable word in it.)

Or, at least, that’s how many Americans would view the rest of the world, if they had even that much geographical awareness.

In reality, I think many Americans see the world through the same sort of lens (though not of course from the same perspective) as Saul Steinberg’s famous New Yorker cover map of the world cartoon:

Oh, and JibJab is at it again!

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

The Great Chain of Being Goes To Heaven

CHT to the reader who sent in the following church sign debate. It's currently being circulated around the Internet in the form of an e-mail that suggests it's real, but it's not (note that the leaves of the plants don't move from one picture to another). That doesn't stop it from being hilarious–if you don't take it (or its theology) too seriously.




















Decent Films doings, 6/2009

Latest reviews, both about thoughtful films for adults in limited release:

Moon, a science fiction throwback to the philosophical sci-fi of the late 1960s and early 1970s (2001: A Space Odyssey and its ilk), starring Sam Rockwell and directed by first-time filmmaker Duncan Jones. (Yes, he’s the son of David Bowie.)

Summer Hours, French director Olivier Assayas’s extraordinary family-drama meditation on legacy and loss, the meaning of art and the relentless march of time, and the fragmentation of families and erosion of culture in an age of globalization.

Although both films are philosophically freighted, both engage the world of ideas in a way organic to the spare, small-scale stories they have to tell — stories about the personal dilemmas of a small number of characters (in the case of Moon, a very small number). Both well worth tracking down.

Up to Heaven

SDG here with a heart-rending yet uplifting real-life story about life imitating art in a beautiful act of kindness from Pixar, makers of Up.

HUNTINGTON BEACH – Colby Curtin, a 10-year-old with a rare form of cancer, was staying alive for one thing – a movie.

From the minute Colby saw the previews to the Disney-Pixar movie Up, she was desperate to see it. Colby had been diagnosed with vascular cancer about three years ago, said her mother, Lisa Curtin, and at the beginning of this month it became apparent that she would die soon and was too ill to be moved to a theater to see the film.

After a family friend made frantic calls to Pixar to help grant Colby her dying wish, Pixar came to the rescue.

The company flew an employee with a DVD of Up, which is only in theaters, to the Curtins’ Huntington Beach home on June 10 for a private viewing of the movie.

Colby died only seven hours after experiencing Up.

Up‘s story of bereavement and hoped-for adventures that would never be must have had shattering poignancy to that dying girl and her family. The story reports that Colby’s mother later said she had no idea how close the film would hit to home: “I just know that word ‘Up’ and all of the balloons and I swear to you, for me it meant that (Colby) was going to go up. Up to heaven.” (Colby’s funeral was held at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Catholic Church.)

The overlap of the film’s themes and Colby’s circumstances was especially brought home by one of the bits of Up memorabilia the Pixar employee brought to the family: an “Adventure Book” much like the one Ellie leaves Carl with, with its blank pages. “I’ll have to fill those adventures in for her,” Colby’s mom said. (Another point of contact: Colby’s parents are divorced, like Russell’s parents. But where Russell’s dad seems to have dropped out of his son’s life, Colby’s dad came to the house after the screening and was with his daughter when she died.)

A family friend reported that the Pixar employee “couldn’t have been nicer … His eyes were just welled up.”

A heartbreaking detail: A few days earlier, Colby’s mother had asked a hospice company to bring a wheelchair so that Colby could see the film in the theater. But the wheelchair never arrived, and Colby quickly became too sick to get out to a theater, necessitating Pixar’s supererogatory intervention. (By the time the movie came to Colby, she was in too much pain to open her eyes and look at it, so her mother gave her scene-by-scene commentary. She did, however, respond to a query about whether she enjoyed the film by nodding her head yes.)

By the way: “Pixar officials declined to comment on the story or name the employees involved.” Beyond class. That’s all I can say.

READ THE (HEART-RENDING, UPLIFTING) STORY.

Workplace Copyright Scruples

A reader writes:

I have a dilemma at work. I work in a school. Part of my job is to do photocopies for teachers. I am sometimes asked to make photocopies of worksheets whose legal status – whether they are copyrighted or not – is unknown to me. The teachers, who don't seem to know about the copyright issue, generally intend to distribute the copies at a later time. That gives me the chance to do a little research to check the legal status of the document and get the nerve to refuse to do something which is certainly wrong, if it is the case.

This situation of uncertainty gets thougher to deal with when, out of the blue, one of the teachers asks me to copy a worksheet for a kid who was absent at the time the sheet was distributed, on a previous day. The teacher expects me to come back as soon as possible so that this kid can do his work like the others.

If the copying were clearly a violation of the author's copyright, I could stand up to the teacher and diplomaticly say "I'm sorry but I cannot do this because …". And if it were okay, I'd go ahead and make the copy.

But in a case of uncertainty, what should I do ? Is it a case of remote material cooperation with evil with a proportionate reason, the proportionate reason being the need for the kid to get an education ? I do not want to infringe copyrights nor make a trouble in class without "sufficient" reasons.

Also, I wonder if making a copy of a collection of images previously copied by the teacher herself would change anything in the remoteness of my cooperation. (Pffeeww! I hope it is clear to you).

First, I'm pleased to say that I think I can cut the Gordian knot on your dilemma by noting that in U.S. copyright law fair use is considered to include significant copying of copyrighted works for classroom distribution. According to the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

So . . . work sheets, collections of pictures, whatever . . . if you're making copies for educational purposes, it looks like the activity is covered by fair use. I thus wouldn't scruple about it.

While this would seem to take care of the reader's issue, not everybody works in a school, so let's look at the moral principles that would apply if one's employer asks one to copy copyrighted material and it is not covered by fair use. What then?

If one is not approving of the act then one is not formally cooperating, which satifies one element of the moral calculus. One's cooperation would be material.

For material cooperation in evil to be justified it is traditionally held that it needs to be remote rather than proximate and that there needs to be a compensating reason of sufficient weight. Also, the act you are doing must not be intrinsically evil.

Making a copy is not intrinsically evil–it's something that can be justified by the circumstances, so that criterion seems satisfied.

What is not satisfied is the traditional remote/proximate distinction. One's action in this case is not remote. If the law one is breaking is against copying and if you are the one doing the copying then your action seems proximate (or more than proximate), violating the traditional requirement that the cooperation be remote.

So I don't think that at least the traditional understanding of the doctrine of cooperation provides a defense.

What I do think provides a defense, morally speaking (the civil law is another matter), is this:

Copyright violation is a species of theft, and the definition of theft is as follows:

CCC 2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.

Now, if you're in a situation where the copying your employer is asking you to do will not strongly affect the income of the copyright holder then you could presume the consent of the owner. Few copyright holders would want people to lose their jobs or be denied promotions because they stood up to their bosses and refused to do the copying. I know I wouldn't want someone losing a job or being denied a promotion because they were defying their boss in defense of the copyrights I hold. My problem is with the boss issuing the order, not the employee carrying them out.

But suppose that you know you're dealing with an inflexible, irrationally strict copyright holder, or suppose you're doing something that will substantially impact the copyright holder's income–like making ten thousand illegal copies of the latest Hollywood blockbuster. What about those cases?

The irrational copyright holder situation is taken care of by the "reasonable will of the owner" condition. He's not reasonable, so you can act on what a reasonable owner would say.

That leaves the case of substantially affecting his income. Here you might have to refuse the order even at the cost of a promotion or a job. The decision would be based on the relative harm to you of having to find another employment situation versus the harm being done to the copyright owner. That's something that could go either way. 

I point it out not to encourage people to scruple over this question–quite the opposite. The great majority of the time one will not be morally at fault for complying with an employer's orders, for the reasons specified above. I merely mention it to point out that these considerations would not (apart from extreme circumstances) justify one working for a business whose principle purpose is copyright piracy, like a mass video or software bootlegger.

That, of course, all deals with the moral aspect of the question, apart from considerations of civil law. If you break the civil law you still run the risk of getting nailed by the authorities.

Translation Questions

A reader writes:

I have this nagging question regarding the revision of the English translation of the Roman Missal. After reading the following: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=424, I was curious whether this new translation could eventually lead to either the use of, or the creation of, a biblical translation at Mass other than the NAB. 

This is just speculation, but my sense is that this is not likely to happen soon–unless the Holy See decides to mandate it, which doesn't strike me as that likely in the near future.

The reasons are twofold:

1) What translation of Scripture is used at Mass is normally left up to the local conference of bishops. You don't have to get the approval of a whole group of bishops' conferences (e.g., those of all the English speaking nations) to get approval for a Scripture translation for the Mass. 

That's why there are different lectionaries in use in different English-speaking countries. Here in the U.S. we use one that is generally based on the New American Bible, but they don't use such a one in England.

For there to be a new translation here in America, without a Vatican mandate, the American bishops would have to mandate one themselves, which leads to the second contributing reason I suspect there won't be one soon . . . 

2) The retranslation of the Roman Missal is a hugely contentious undertaking and after it's done both sides are likely to want a period of liturgical peace. The attitude will be, "Well, that was very unpleasant. Let's not do anything like that again for some time."

Fundamentally re-doing the lectionary would be just such an undesirable task. Oh, sure, they might tinker with it. But to do a major revision would open too many wounds.

I suspect that the Holy See is unlikely to mandate a new lectionary in America for similar reasons–though you never know.

Also, could any of this lead to a similar reworking of the Liturgy of the Hours? 

I see this as more likely. After completing the retranslation of the Sacramentary, it would be logical for the Holy See to say, "Now let's fix the translations of the other rites," including the Liturgy of the Hours.

I read somewhere that there was movement afoot to gain acceptance of the RSV-CE 2nd Edition in the liturgy, is that true? Is it feasible?

I am aware of some movement in this regard, and it could happen, though I'm somewhat skeptical of its chances in the short run.


The best one could hope for along these lines would be permission to use the RSV:CE in addition to the NAB lectionary at Mass. A replacement of the NAB with the RSV:CE would be seen as too direct a repudiation of the bishops' work since the NAB translation was produced at their behest and under their authority.


And I think the odds of getting even permission to use the RSV in addition to the NAB is not great.


It took long enough for the U.S. bishops to get everyone on the same lectionary page. They're likely to want to leave that page unturned for a while.


So, while things can always change, I suspect that we're stuck with our current lectionary translation for a while.

BTW, the link the reader provides is a good one. READ THE WHOLE THING.

In Utero Baptism

Baby_in_mothers_womb A reader writes:

I was listening to you on podcast and was very interested to find the document about in utero baptism. As a labor and delivery nurse, this info would have made a world of difference (had I know it) for some of the families I have led thru their losses. Could you direct me?

Sure, no problem. I got a number of queries after I mentioned on Catholic Answers Live that there was a document from the Holy Office (the predecessor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that expressly allowed for in utero baptism.


First let me note that even if the document didn't exist, there would be no barrier to baptizing children in utero in emergency circumstances. They're babies. They need baptism in a hurry (because it's an emergency). The Church hasn't forbidden it. They can be baptized. It's as simple as that. We wouldn't need express permission to do this; we'd just need to apply the standard principles to the situation and make sure we were doing it in a valid fashion.

But we do have express warrant from the Holy Office acknowledging the practice. The document is rather old–it came out in 1901, so just over a century ago–but the conclusion has not been repudiated (not that I'm aware of) and the same principles would apply.

So, here's the text of the document, which takes the form of a responsum ad dubium (a response to a question), which in this case was posed by the Archbishop of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Here is the response as printed in the last edition of Denzinger (before Denzinger-Schonmetzer) and published in English as Sources of Catholic Dogma:

The Matter of Baptism 

[From a Decree of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901] 

The Archbishop of Utrecht relates: 

[D 1977] "Many medical doctors in hospitals and elsewhere in cases of necessity are accustomed to baptize infants in their mother's wombs with water mixed with hydrargyrus bichloratus corrosives (in French: chloride de mercure) [in English: mercuric chloride–ja]. This water is compounded approximately of a solution of one part of this chloretus hydrargicus in a thousand parts of water, and with this solution of water the potion is poisonous. Now the reason why they use this mixture is that the womb of the mother may not be infected with disease."
Therefore the questions: 

I. Is a baptism administered with such water certainly or dubiously valid? 

II. Is it permitted to avoid all danger of disease to administer the sacrament of baptism with such water? 

III. Is it permitted also to use this water when pure water can be applied without any danger of disease? 

The answers are (with the approbation of Leo Xlll): 

To I. This will be answered in. II 

To II. It is permitted when real danger of disease is present. 

To III. No. 

On Catholic Answers Live I mentioned this decree and also discussed how the baptism could be performed. One way would be to apply the water of baptism to the baby through a syringe, as is used in amniocentesis. 

I also speculated that it might be possible (i.e., was at least arguably possible) to perform baptism by administering water to the amniotic sac or the placenta, since these are composed of the child's cells and are ephemeral organs that humans have at one stage of life but then lose (the way a tadpole has a tail that goes away when it becomes a frog).

In practice, though, I would not recommend administering the water to these and would stick with the safer option of administering the water to the conventionally-recognized body of the baby and, especially, its head. 

The reader also writes:

Beyond the amnio idea, I have wondered about baptism as the cervix is examined. Once the amniotic sack is ruptured, the child can be felt and an angiocath with a water-filled syringe could be used to deliver the water (sterile) to the child for baptism. A relatively easy procedure for L&D staff.

If I understand the reader correctly, this would also be a valid way of administering baptism. The key for validity is to get the water in contact with the child. The specific means by which that is accomplished can vary.


The reader also mentions the use of sterile water, which I gather is readily available today to labor and delivery staffs, and this might moot the question of whether one should use a disinfectant in the water to prevent disease. (I don't know how realiably people had access to genuinely sterile water in 1901; I know they knew about boiling, but this is an aspect of medical history I haven't researched.) 


In principle, though, it would still be legitimate to add small amounts of antiseptic (mercuric chloride or something else) or other anti-infection agents. Whether these would be needed or whether just sterile water would be okay would be a medical decision I'm not qualified to speak to. 


I'm an apologist, not a doctor, dangit!